cass cent re for p rofessional se rvice firms per cpsf
TRANSCRIPT
Leaand
D
Cas
ading d Cove
Do not c
ss Cent
Work
autonert lea
Johan
cite or q
tre for P
king Pa
omoudersh
ser
n Alvehu
quote w
laurajohan
ww
Professi
per CPS
s folloip pra
rvice fi
us and L
without t
[email protected]@isww.cass.ac.uk
onal Se
SF - 012
owers:cticesirms
Laura E
the auth
ty.ac.uk sm.lu.se k/cpsf
ervice F
2-2014
Indires in pro
Empson
hors’ pe
irms
ect, Ovofessio
ermissio
vert, onal
on
ABSTR
This pa
conting
Based o
accoun
leaders
themes
practice
depend
sustain
retainin
these p
behavio
“relucta
position
literatur
can be
Key wo
RACT
aper asks: I
ent manag
on a cross
ting, consu
ship as prac
s: 1) how am
es, and 2) h
dent. The s
ing legitima
ng control, a
practices ar
ors. Our stu
ant leaders
ns with thei
re on plura
contingent
ords: Lead
In organiza
gerial autho
-case anal
ulting, and
ctice literat
mbiguous
how leade
study identi
acy to lead
and acting
re manifest
udy sugges
” who mus
ir “autonom
al models o
t, construct
dership pra
Ca
ations char
ority, how d
ysis of fou
legal secto
ture by exp
power dyn
rship pract
fies three d
d through m
g politically
ted through
sts that pro
st constantl
mous follow
of leadershi
ted and ne
actice, Profe
ass Centre for P
2
racterized b
do senior p
r global pro
ors, this stu
plicitly addr
amics with
tices are bo
distinctive
market suc
whilst app
h a combin
ofessional
y negotiate
wers”. In so
ip by explo
egotiated.
essionals,
Professional Ser
by extensiv
professiona
ofessional
udy contrib
ressing two
hin organiza
oth context
leadership
cess, enab
earing apo
nation of im
service firm
e and rene
o doing we
oring how le
Power dyn
rvice Firms – Wo
ve individu
als exercise
service firm
butes to the
o previousl
ations affe
t-creating a
p practices:
bling auton
olitical. It de
mplicit, over
ms are led
egotiate the
contribute
eader/follow
namics
orking Paper 01
al autonom
e leadersh
ms in the
e emerging
ly neglecte
ct leadersh
and contex
gaining an
omy whilst
emonstrate
rt, and cov
by suppos
eir leadersh
e to the gro
wer relatio
12 ‐ 2014
my and
ip?
g
ed
hip
xt-
nd
t
es how
vert
sedly
hip
wing
nships
INTRO
Practice
activitie
exercis
authorit
within th
Wallace
analyzin
autonom
how lea
It
concep
have be
al., 201
studies
caused
Rather,
exercis
tempora
2003a;
everyda
analysis
situatio
DUCTION
e-based ap
es of leader
ed (Carroll
ty of leader
hese organ
e & Tomlin
ng how lea
my and con
adership pr
is now und
ptualized as
ecome incr
0; 2012; E
, drawing o
by or resu
, leadership
e of influen
ary, more i
Ladkin, 20
ay experien
s from the
ns (Carroll
pproaches
rs and thei
l, Levy & R
rs has bee
nizational c
son, 2010)
adership is
ntingent m
ractices op
derstood w
s a collectiv
reasingly in
Empson & L
on social th
ulting from
p is unders
nce upon e
insecure, a
010). These
nces and a
individual
et al., 200
Ca
to leaders
r followers
Richmond, 2
en taken for
contexts la
). In this st
practiced
anagerial a
perate in pr
within the sc
ve process
nfluential (C
Langley, Fo
heories of p
the compe
stood as an
each other.
and more s
e approach
activities of
leader and
08; Denis e
ass Centre for P
3
hip have fo
s, the conte
2008; Ladk
r granted a
rgely negle
udy, we ad
in an organ
authority. I
rofessional
cholarly lite
s, and vario
Carroll et a
orthcoming
practice, ch
etency or c
n effect of t
Thus lead
subject to n
hes to lead
f leaders an
d/or followe
et al., 2012
Professional Ser
ocused atte
exts and sit
kin, 2010).
and the und
ected (Den
ddress thes
nizational c
n the proce
settings.
erature that
ous notions
al., 2008; C
g; Gronn, 2
haracterize
haracterist
the interac
dership bec
negotiation
dership focu
nd follower
er to the co
; Gronn, 20
rvice Firms – Wo
ention on t
tuations in
Often, how
derlying po
nis, Langley
se limitatio
context of e
ess we pro
t leadershi
s of plural f
Crevani et a
2002; Ladk
e leadershi
tics of indiv
ctions of ind
comes view
(Alvesson
us on high
rs alike, sh
ontext of pa
002).
orking Paper 01
he everyda
which lead
wever, the
ower dynam
y & Sergi, 2
ns directly
extensive i
ovide insigh
p can be
forms of le
al., 2007; D
kin, 2010). T
p not as so
vidual pers
dividuals an
wed as mo
n & Svening
lighting the
hifting the u
articular so
12 ‐ 2014
ay
dership is
formal
mics
2012;
by
individual
hts into
adership
Denis et
These
omething
ons.
nd their
re
gsson,
e
unit of
cial
Th
deeply
depend
underst
relation
2004; C
noted b
of conte
manner
particul
hierarch
In
which a
authorit
system
profess
(Abbott
delivery
describ
the plur
negotia
In
as pion
increas
his process
contextual
dent” (Walla
tand the co
nships with
Conger, 19
by Wallace
exts, in ord
r. Denis et
arly intrigu
hy is limite
this paper
are charact
ty. In profe
of authorit
sional servi
t, 1988). Th
y of profess
bed as like
ral” (Empso
ate and ren
view of the
eering org
ingly relev
sual and pl
ized pheno
ace & Tom
ontext in w
each othe
98; Kemps
& Tomlins
der to unde
al. (1996:
uing in situa
d, and whe
r we explor
terized by e
essional se
ty is based
ces) rathe
he professi
sional serv
“herding ca
on & Langl
egotiate th
ese compl
anizationa
ant to orga
Ca
lural practic
omenon, w
mlinson, 20
hich leade
er are shap
ster & Parry
son (ibid.),
erstand the
674) sugge
ations of am
ere goals a
re leadersh
extensive i
rvice firms
d on merito
r than hiera
ional worke
vices, are n
ats” (Løwe
ley, Forthc
heir leaders
ex power d
l response
anizations m
ass Centre for P
4
ce-based p
which is “bo
10: 41). It t
rship intera
ed by the c
y, 2011; U
a need for
leadership
est that the
mbiguity …
and techno
hip in such
ndividual a
, especially
cracy (i.e.
archical po
ers, with th
notoriously
endahl, 200
oming), cre
ship positio
dynamics,
es to leader
more gene
Professional Ser
perspective
oth context-
therefore b
actions occ
context in w
hl-Bien, 20
empirical
p-context d
e “study of
… where the
logies are
a context:
autonomy a
y professio
superior sk
ositioning w
heir expecta
difficult to
05). Leader
eating a co
ons in relat
profession
rship challe
erally within
rvice Firms – Wo
e presents
-creating a
becomes ne
cur, as indi
which they
006). There
research in
dynamic in
strategic le
e traditiona
unclear.”
in profess
and conting
onal partne
kill at sellin
within a form
ations of a
lead: a pro
rship is typ
onstant nee
tion to othe
al service
enges whic
n the know
orking Paper 01
leadership
and context
ecessary to
viduals’
y co-exist (B
e is, therefo
nto differen
a more nu
eadership
al power of
sional servi
gent mana
rships, the
ng and deliv
mal bureau
utonomy in
ocess often
pically perfo
ed for partn
er partners.
firms can b
ch are beco
ledge econ
12 ‐ 2014
p as a
t-
o
Bryman,
ore, as
nt types
uanced
seems
f the
ce firms,
agerial
e primary
vering
ucracy
n their
n
ormed “in
ners to
.
be seen
oming
nomy –
specific
to work
Forthco
significa
contem
be gain
profess
and ver
Langley
Ba
accoun
extensi
profess
practice
power d
distincti
success
appeari
leaders
autonom
Th
emergin
power d
profess
cally how to
k collaborat
oming). Pro
ant extent
mporary org
ned from st
sional servi
ry little is kn
y, ibid.).
ased on a
ting, consu
ive individu
sionals exe
e literature
dynamics a
ive leaders
s, enabling
ing apolitic
ship practic
mous follow
he paper p
ng leaders
dynamics a
sional servi
o persuade
tively to se
ofessional s
resolved, o
ganizationa
udying lea
ce firms ha
nown abou
cross-case
ulting, and
ual autonom
ercise leade
by explicit
and the imp
ship practic
g autonomy
cal. It demo
ces enables
wers.
roceeds as
hip as prac
and concep
ce firms, h
Ca
e highly ed
rve the nee
service firm
one of the
al life (Cleg
dership pra
ave been a
ut how lead
e analysis o
legal secto
my and con
ership? Th
tly address
pact of con
ces: gaining
y whilst ret
onstrates h
s senior pr
s follows. F
ctice literat
ptualization
highlighting
ass Centre for P
5
ucated, rel
eds of the
ms have th
most challe
g et al. 200
actices in t
almost enti
dership is p
of four glob
ors, we ask
ntingent ma
is paper co
sing previou
ntext on lea
g and sust
taining con
ow this co
rofessionals
First we hig
ture and its
n of contex
the dearth
Professional Ser
latively aut
organizatio
erefore gra
enging pow
06). There
this contex
rely neglec
performed
bal profess
k: In organi
anagerial a
ontributes t
usly neglec
adership pr
taining legit
trol, and ac
mbination
s to exercis
ghlight som
s limitations
xt. We then
h of empiric
rvice Firms – Wo
tonomous k
on (Empso
appled with
wer dynam
is, therefo
xt. To date,
cted by lea
in this cont
sional servi
izations ch
authority, h
to the eme
cted theme
ractices. It
timacy thro
cting politic
of implicit,
se leaders
me key them
s regarding
n examine l
cal and the
orking Paper 01
knowledge
on & Langle
h, and to a
mics at the h
re, much v
however,
dership sc
text (Emps
ce firms in
haracterize
how do sen
rging leade
es of ambig
identifies t
ough marke
cally whilst
overt, and
hip among
mes within
g the analy
leadership
eoretical wo
12 ‐ 2014
e workers
ey,
heart of
value to
cholars
son &
the
d by
nior
ership as
guous
three
et
t
d covert
g
the
ysis of
in
ork in
this are
especia
the stud
the stud
leaders
LEADE
Drawing
al., 200
everyda
concep
and situ
emphas
produce
“leaders
particul
‘leader’
emphas
influenc
2010).
Th
plural m
be view
phenom
ea. We elab
ally regardi
dy is prese
dy and elab
ship as prac
ERSHIP AS
g on social
01), leaders
ay activities
pts such as
uations (Ca
size proces
ed and per
ship emerg
ar situation
or ‘followe
sis within th
ce each oth
his focus o
models of le
wed as a pr
menon that
borate on t
ng individu
ented. We t
borate upo
ctice theor
S PRACTIC
l practice t
ship resear
s of leader
traits and
arroll et al.,
ssual ‘how
rformed” (D
ges from a
n or contex
ers’ and a p
his approa
her and, th
n the proce
eadership.
roperty of i
t is distribu
Ca
he particul
ual autonom
then exam
on the three
ry are deve
CE: PROC
heory (e.g.
rchers have
rs, thereby
competenc
, 2008). Em
’ questions
Denis et al.
collective
xt, people i
purpose to
ach is there
ereby, exe
ess of lead
According
ndividuals
ted or shar
ass Centre for P
6
ar challeng
my and ma
ine the org
e practices
eloped in th
CESSUAL A
. Bourdieu,
e turned th
shifting foc
cies, towar
mpirical stu
s, aimed at
, 2012: 255
process cr
nvolved in
which the
efore to und
ercise leade
dership is c
g to this per
and their b
red among
Professional Ser
ges of lead
anagerial a
ganizationa
s we have i
he discussi
AND PLUR
, 1990; de
heir attentio
cus from a
rds concret
udies based
t understan
5). Ladkin
reated thro
that proce
ir collective
derstand be
ership (Ca
consistent w
rspective, l
behaviors,
g different p
rvice Firms – Wo
dership in t
authority. N
al context o
dentified. T
on and con
RAL
Certeau, 1
on in recen
bstract and
te and proc
d on this p
nding how
(2010: 177
ough the co
ess who tak
e action is
etter how i
rroll et al.,
with the inc
leadership
but as “a c
people, pot
orking Paper 01
his context
Next, the me
of the four f
The implica
nclusions s
1984; Scha
nt years to t
d individua
cessual ac
erspective
leadership
7–8) stress
onfluence o
ke up roles
directed.” T
ndividuals
2008; Lad
creased int
should no
collective
tentially flu
12 ‐ 2014
t,
ethod of
firms in
ations for
section.
atzki et
the
al level
ctivities
“clearly
p is
ses that
of a
s as
The
kin,
terest in
t simply
id, and
constru
exchan
relation
models
constru
Ad
what th
et al., 2
Within t
al., 201
intercha
al., 201
shared
relation
Conger
process
and at o
Pr
which le
social s
“followe
al. (201
at least
argue, s
ucted in inte
ge theory w
nships betw
of leaders
ucted and n
dopting this
ey have va
2009; Denis
this body o
2), the term
angeably (A
2) these te
among mu
nships are a
r (2003: 1)
s among in
other times
ractice-orie
eadership
situations a
er” are soci
2) highligh
t make ass
scholars “n
eraction” (D
which gene
ween leade
ship acknow
negotiated
s perspect
ariously ca
s et al., 200
of literature
ms shared
Avolio et a
erms broad
ultiple acto
ambiguous
describe s
ndividuals i
s involves u
ented, plura
as a pheno
and context
ially constr
ht an impor
sumptions a
need to pay
Ca
Denis et al
erally assu
ers and the
wledge tha
through int
ive, a grow
lled “collec
01; Gronn,
e, broadly c
, collective
al., 2009). A
dly describe
rs in organ
s and poten
shared lead
n groups w
upward or
al approac
omenon is
ts, and em
ructed in ta
rtant limitat
about, issu
y greater a
ass Centre for P
7
., 2012). T
umes pre-d
ir followers
at leader/fo
teraction.
wing numbe
ctive”, “sha
2002; Pea
categorized
e, and distri
Although th
e a phenom
nizational c
ntially cont
dership as:
which … of
downward
hes to lead
continually
phasizes t
alk and acti
tion of this
ues of powe
attention to
Professional Ser
herefore, u
etermined
s (Graen &
ollower rela
er of schola
red” or “dis
arce & Con
d as “leade
ibuted lead
hey refer to
menon whe
contexts an
tested. For
“a dynam
ften involve
hierarchic
dership, the
y produced
hat identiti
ion. Howev
literature –
er and hier
the underl
rvice Firms – Wo
unlike leade
and stable
Uhl-Bien,
ationships c
ars have b
stributed” le
nger, 2003
ership in the
dership are
o distinct co
ere leaders
nd where a
example,
ic, interact
es peer, or
cal influenc
erefore, hig
d and repro
es such as
ver, in their
– the tende
rarchy. As
lying patter
orking Paper 01
er-member
e hierarchic
1995), plu
can be con
egun to ex
eadership
; Spillane,
e plural” (D
e often use
oncepts (D
ship roles a
uthority
Pearce an
ive influenc
lateral, inf
ce”.
ghlight the
oduced in c
s “leader” a
r review, D
ency to ove
Denis et al
rns of pow
12 ‐ 2014
r
cal
ral
ntingent,
xplore
(Avolio
2005).
Denis et
d
enis et
are
d
ce
fluence
way in
concrete
and
Denis et
erlook, or
l. (2012)
er
relation
issue of
leaders
and the
authorit
little ab
consiste
neglect
contem
So
exampl
interact
Yet the
leader/f
about h
peer gr
where p
support
Tu
leaders
specific
leaders
change
strong e
nships that
f power dy
ship practic
e processes
ty and infor
out how po
ent with mu
t the impac
mporary org
ome micro-
e by exam
tion sequen
assumptio
follower rol
how individ
oup, and h
power dyna
t of their pe
urning expl
ship as prac
cally how it
ship is intrin
e the contex
emphasis o
might influ
ynamics is c
ces, very lit
s by which
rmal powe
ower affect
uch contem
ct of power
ganizations
-level prac
mining how
nces (see e
on within th
les and rel
uals estab
how they co
amics are f
eers.
licitly to the
ctice literat
remains u
nsically a c
xt within w
on context
Ca
uence the e
central to u
ttle is know
leadership
r structures
ts leadersh
mporary the
, presentin
s (Pfeffer, 2
ctice studie
power dyn
e.g. Creva
hese studie
ationships
lish themse
onstruct, ne
fluid and m
e significan
ture is the
unproblema
contextually
hich it is em
, as alread
ass Centre for P
8
emergence
understand
wn about ho
p practices
s. As Denis
hip practice
eorizing on
g an ideali
2013).
s have exp
namics are
ni et al., 20
es is that th
, are prede
elves and c
egotiate, a
managerial
nce of cont
way in whi
atized. As W
y embedde
mbedded.
y highlight
Professional Ser
e of plural le
ding the ph
ow exactly
s both shap
s et al. (ibid
es, interact
n leadershi
zed apoliti
plicitly addr
played out
007, and La
he power d
etermined.
come to be
and sustain
authority is
ext, a seco
ch context
Wallace an
ed activity t
Yet, while
ed, it tends
rvice Firms – Wo
eadership”
henomenon
these dyna
pe and are
d: 267) not
ions, and o
ip which ha
cal and un
ressed issu
t in particu
arsson & L
dynamics, s
As yet ver
e accepted
n these pos
s contingen
ond limitatio
t is concep
nd Tomlins
that also ha
practice re
s to assum
orking Paper 01
” (p. 60). W
n of plural
amics are
shaped by
te: “We stil
outcomes.”
as tended t
nhierarchica
ues of pow
lar situatio
Lundholm,
specifically
ry little is kn
d as leader
sitions in co
nt on the o
on within th
tualized,
on (2010)
as the pote
esearch pu
me the stab
12 ‐ 2014
While the
enacted
y formal
ll know
” This is
to
al view of
wer, for
ons, e.g.
2010).
y
nown
s by their
ontexts
ongoing
he
argue,
ential to
uts a
ility of
pre-give
power d
relevan
address
Tomlins
excepti
pluralist
within a
defined
In
that the
and Wa
in profe
explain
LEADE
PROFE
Conven
definitio
profess
betwee
relation
profess
nudging
en hierarch
dynamics a
nt where au
sed leader
son’s (2010
ons. Howe
tic profess
a pre-existi
d.
this paper
e healthcar
allace and
essional se
ed below.
ERSHIP IN
ESSIONAL
ntional mod
on, must ha
sional servi
n “leaders”
nships are r
sional peers
g, and pers
hical relatio
and the ass
uthority is c
rship in suc
0) studies
ever, while
ional conte
ng bureauc
r, we focus
re and educ
Tomlinson
ervice firms
PROFESS
LS
dels of lead
ave followe
ce firms, s
” and “follo
replaced b
s (Adler et
suading” (G
Ca
onships an
sumption o
contingent
ch contexts
in the heal
power rela
exts are su
cratic hiera
s on the con
cational co
(2011) are
s manageria
SIONAL S
dership are
ers (Avolio
such as law
owers” is pr
y more am
al., 2008).
Greenwood
ass Centre for P
9
d positiona
of stable hie
(Denis et a
s. Denis et
thcare and
ations amo
bject to co
archy, whe
ntext of pro
ontexts app
e indeed co
al authority
ERVICE F
e predicate
et al., 200
w, consultin
roblematic
mbiguous a
. As a resu
d et al., 199
Professional Ser
al power st
erarchical
al., 2010). F
al’s. (2006
d education
ngst the le
onstant neg
re leader/fo
ofessional
proached b
omplex in t
y is more e
FIRMS: INF
ed on the as
9; Howell a
ng, or acco
as traditio
nd negotia
ult “leadersh
90: 748). In
rvice Firms – Wo
tructures. T
relations b
Few studie
6) and Wall
n sectors a
eadership g
gotiation, th
follower rel
service firm
by Denis et
terms of au
explicitly co
FLUENCIN
ssumption
and Shami
unting firm
nal hierarc
ated relation
hip is a ma
n spite of th
orking Paper 01
This neglec
become par
es to date h
lace and
re importa
group within
hey take pl
ations are
ms. While n
al. (1996,
uthority stru
ontingent, a
NG AUTON
that leade
ir, 2005). In
ms, the disti
chical dyad
nships amo
atter of guid
heir distinc
12 ‐ 2014
ct of
rticularly
have
nt
n such
ace
broadly
noting
2010)
uctures,
as
NOMOUS
ers, by
n
inction
ic
ongst
ding,
ctiveness,
profess
scholar
follower
Forthco
firm lea
Th
interrela
manage
Experie
(Miner e
for prof
speciali
perpetu
firm – te
profess
Th
conting
authorit
rest wit
control,
the orga
operatin
selecte
office a
sional servi
rs, perhaps
rship in set
oming). Put
adership lite
he distinctiv
ated organ
erial autho
enced profe
et al., 1994
fessionals t
ist technica
uated by th
echnical kn
sionals (Em
his emphas
ent manag
ty is “colleg
h the profe
, i.e. behav
anization (
ng core (M
d (and ofte
and can be
ce firms ha
s because o
ttings wher
t simply, th
erature is t
ve challeng
nizational c
rity (Empso
essionals r
4; Von Glin
to preserve
al expertise
e fact that
nowledge a
mpson, 200
sis on relat
gerial autho
gial and fra
essional pe
vior control
Ouchi, 198
Mintzberg, 1
en elected)
deposed if
Ca
ave receive
of the diffic
re they ten
he fundame
hat it does
ges of prof
haracterist
on & Lang
require, or
now, 1988)
e the right t
e to the de
the core v
and client r
01).
tively exten
ority (Gree
agile” (Hinin
eer group ra
led through
80), is the n
1983). Sen
) by their pe
f they fail to
ass Centre for P
10
ed very littl
culty of isol
d to conve
ental proble
s not really
fessional s
tics: extens
ley, Forthc
at least ex
. This auto
to make ch
livery of cu
value-creati
relationship
nsive indivi
nwood et a
ngs, Brown
ather than
h common
norm and p
ior executi
eers to form
o retain the
Professional Ser
e direct att
lating notio
erge (Emps
ematization
exist.
ervice firm
sive individ
coming; Min
xpect, exten
onomy is le
hoices abo
ustomized
ing resourc
ps – are oft
idual auton
al., 1990).
n & Greenw
the individ
values, tra
power rests
ves in prof
mal leaders
e support o
rvice Firms – Wo
tention from
ons of lead
son & Lang
n of the pro
leadership
dual autono
ntzberg, 19
nsive indivi
egitimated b
ut how bes
profession
ces of a pro
ten proprie
nomy is ass
In professio
wood, 1991
dual (Marcs
aditions, an
s with profe
fessional s
ship roles f
of their pee
orking Paper 01
m leadersh
ership and
gley,
ofessional
p derive fro
omy and co
979, 1983)
idual auton
by the requ
st to apply
al services
ofessional
etary to spe
sociated w
onal servic
1) and dee
son, 1962)
nd commitm
essionals i
ervice firm
for a fixed
ers (Empso
12 ‐ 2014
hip
d
service
om two
ontingent
.
nomy
uirement
their
s. It is
service
ecific
with
ce firms,
med to
. Clan
ment to
n the
s are
term of
on,
2007). A
“mainta
their int
governa
Empson
the cha
As a re
conting
W
espous
may be
expertis
Diefenb
expertis
Throug
socializ
Anders
leaders
appropr
a partne
Chittipe
firms pr
(Alvess
informa
As Mintzbe
ains power
terests effe
ance within
n, 2003), b
aracteristics
sult, the fo
ent. They c
While profes
e a commi
e more or le
se in the de
bach & Silli
se conveys
h the appre
zation and t
on-Gough
ship role by
riate behav
er and lead
eddi, 1991;
rovide prof
son and Wi
al control ov
erg (1989:
only as lon
ectively.” T
n the tradit
but is also c
s of profess
ormal autho
can only le
ssional serv
itment to in
ess explicit
esign and d
ince, 2011
s an inform
enticeship
training pro
et al., 200
y explicitly c
viors, expli
der in a pro
Thompso
fessionals w
llmott, 200
ver autono
Ca
181) states
ng as the p
his is partic
ional profe
common in
sional part
ority of sen
ead by cons
vice firms m
ndividual au
t and are o
delivery of
; Robertso
mal authorit
model of s
ocess in pr
0, 2001, 20
coaching m
cating and
ofessional
n, 1967). In
with an org
02; Mills, 19
omous prof
ass Centre for P
11
s, a senior
professiona
cularly so i
essions suc
n corporate
nership go
ior executi
sent.
may explic
utonomy, h
often derive
profession
n & Swan,
y which ca
skills transf
rofessional
002), the s
more junior
embodyin
service firm
n this way,
ganizationa
940), thus e
fessionals.
Professional Ser
r executive
als perceive
n partners
ch as law a
e profession
overnance
ves in prof
citly eschew
hierarchies
ed from the
nal services
2003). In o
arries more
fer, which i
service fir
senior profe
r profession
ng the belie
m (Denis e
leaders w
ally sanctio
enabling th
rvice Firms – Wo
in a profes
e him or he
hips, the p
and accoun
nal service
(Empson &
fessional se
w formal hie
s neverthele
e perceptio
s (Brown e
other word
e weight tha
is fundame
rms (Alveh
essional in
nals and ro
efs and beh
t al., 2007;
within profes
oned vocab
hem to exe
orking Paper 01
ssional ser
er to be se
prevailing fo
nting (Gree
e firms whic
& Chapman
ervice firm
erarchy an
ess persist
n of superi
et al., 2010
ds, professi
at formal po
ental to pro
us, Forthco
effect exe
ole modelin
haviors req
; Gioia &
ssional ser
bulary of m
ercise a deg
12 ‐ 2014
rvice firm
rving
orm of
enwood &
ch mimic
n, 2006).
s is
nd
t. These
ior
;
ional
osition.
ofessional
oming;
rcises a
ng
quired of
rvice
otives
gree of
Em
is abou
individu
maximiz
partner
senior p
to build
Denis e
the indi
In
executiv
network
skills in
(2010: 2
many tr
such th
other po
interest
leaders
Forthco
and pol
The cur
literatur
dynami
mpson’s (2
t managing
ualistic des
ze. The ele
is a manif
partners’ re
the conse
et al., 2007
vidual part
order to a
ves need t
ks of influe
order to n
297) state,
raditional p
ey are sub
olitical aren
t groups.” W
ship proces
oming) to d
litical pract
rrent study
re: first, the
cs on lead
2007) study
g the delica
sire to self-a
ection of in
festation of
esponsibilit
ensus they
7) and, in so
tner and th
chieve this
to be acute
ence among
avigate an
, profession
professiona
bject to the
na to achie
While it has
sses within
date no em
tices in this
y seeks to a
e assumpti
ership prac
Ca
y of partne
ate balance
actualize a
ndividuals t
f the partne
ty, within th
need to im
o doing, re
e collective
s, Empson
ely aware o
g their colle
nd negotiate
nal service
al partnersh
lobbying, s
eve agreem
s been sug
a professi
pirical stud
s context.
address im
on of stabl
ctices, and
ass Centre for P
12
r dynamics
e between
and the coll
o the leade
ership’s co
he delegate
mplement th
esolve the i
e partnersh
and Langl
of the implic
eagues an
e these ne
e firms are
hips are co
scheming,
ment on de
ggested tha
onal servic
dies have b
mportant lim
e hierarchy
d second, t
Professional Ser
s argues th
preserving
lective part
ership roles
llective will
ed authorit
hat collectiv
nherent te
hip.
ey (Forthco
cit power s
d to have
etworks of i
“uniquely p
onsensus-b
and barga
cisions am
at power an
ce firm (Em
been condu
mitations in
y and negl
he lack of
rvice Firms – Wo
hat leaders
g each indi
tnership’s d
s of manag
l. It is the m
ty structure
ve will (Ad
nsion betw
oming) arg
structures a
highly dev
nfluence. A
political env
based dem
aining whic
mong divers
nd politics
mpson & La
ucted into p
the leader
ect of the i
insight into
orking Paper 01
hip in this c
ividual part
desire to p
ging and se
managing a
e of the par
ler et al., 2
ween the ne
gue, senior
and shifting
veloped pol
As Morris e
vironments
mocracies b
ch occurs in
se individua
are centra
angley,
power dyna
rship as pra
impact of p
o how leade
12 ‐ 2014
context
tners’
rofit
enior
and
rtnership,
2008;
eeds of
r
g
litical
et al.
s …
but as
n any
als and
l to the
amics
actice
power
ership
practice
contribu
firms. B
paper a
conting
RESEA
While le
debate
very fra
adopted
profess
practice
uncons
influenc
these te
manage
leaders
Th
method
studies
which c
domina
therefor
es are both
ute to the n
Based on a
asks: In org
gent manag
ARCH DES
eadership i
regarding
agmented r
d to concep
sionals in o
es encomp
cious actio
ce the orga
erms, we s
ement, and
s and leade
he emphas
dological im
“to capture
cannot be s
ated the lea
re, engage
h context-c
nascent lite
a cross-cas
ganizations
gerial autho
SIGN
is a widely
its nature.
research fie
ptualizing l
order to infl
pass delibe
ons and un
anization. B
sidestep pro
d focus ins
ership.
sis on proc
mplications
e the truly
studied thro
adership lite
e in detailed
Ca
reating and
erature on
se analysis
s character
ority, how d
researche
Numerous
eld (Yukl, 1
leadership
uence thei
erate tactics
intended c
By concept
oblematic d
tead on ho
essual and
. There are
dynamic q
ough the s
erature (Co
d analysis
ass Centre for P
13
d context-d
leadership
of four glo
rized by ex
do senior p
ed topic, the
s definition
1989; Bark
is to focus
r peers, su
s (Kipnis et
consequenc
tualizing lea
distinctions
ow practice
d plural lea
e growing d
qualities of
urvey-base
onger, 199
of micro ac
Professional Ser
dependent.
in the con
obal profess
xtensive ind
professiona
ere is a lon
s and dive
ker, 1997).
s on the pra
uperiors an
t al., 1980;
ces, all of w
adership a
s between
es contribut
dership pra
demands fo
leadership
ed method
98). Practic
ctivities, em
rvice Firms – Wo
. In so doin
ntext of prof
sional serv
dividual au
als exercise
ng establis
rging resul
The appro
actices use
nd subordin
Denis et a
which colle
and leaders
e.g. leade
te to the co
actices has
or qualitativ
p” (Gordon
s which ha
ce-based le
mphasising
orking Paper 01
ng, it also s
fessional s
vice firms, t
tonomy an
e leadershi
hed and on
lts have to
oach we ha
ed by senio
nates. Thes
al., 1996) a
ectively ser
ship practic
rship and
onstruction
s importan
ve leaders
& Yukl, 20
ave traditio
eadership s
g thick desc
12 ‐ 2014
seeks to
service
this
nd
ip?
n-going
led to a
ave
or
se
as well as
rve to
ces in
n of
t
hip
004: 364)
nally
studies,
criptions
of how
situatio
In
using in
possible
practitio
practitio
more di
concea
this pap
The em
cases (
selecte
relation
cases w
issues o
this pap
represe
extensiv
method
Fo
intervie
globally
highly f
leadership
nal factors
this study
ndirect met
e to unders
oners” (Car
oners’ poin
irect metho
lment of ac
per.
mpirical bas
(see Table
d because
nships and
were select
of leadersh
per were se
ented more
ve individu
ds used in t
or the two s
ws in multi
y integrated
federated s
p actually h
s that result
, we follow
thods for a
stand “the
rroll et al.,
nt of view. M
ods (e.g. o
ctions; this
sis of this s
1). The ca
e they are p
logic amon
ted from a
hip in profe
elected bec
e extreme m
ual autonom
the cases w
smaller glo
iple countr
d basis. By
structure an
Ca
appens in
t in a dece
w the logic o
pproaching
way practi
2008: 367
Many pract
bservation
s is indeed
study consi
ases were c
particularly
ng construc
broader se
essional se
cause : (a)
manifestati
my), and (b
were most
obal firms s
ries (16 in t
y contrast,
nd leaders
ass Centre for P
14
the workpl
ntered und
of inquiry u
g practices
ce is evoke
) and thus
tices may a
s), as they
the case w
sts primari
chosen by
suitable fo
cts” (Eisen
et case stu
ervice firms
) the empir
ons of con
b) the meth
consistent
studied (un
total) as the
the two lar
hip dynam
Professional Ser
lace (Sven
derstanding
used by e.g
s. By interv
ed ‘everyda
understan
also be diff
y may conc
with two of
ly of 144 in
theoretica
or illuminat
nhardt & Gr
udies which
s. The case
rical contex
ntingent ma
hods emplo
t.
nder 5,000
e leadersh
rger global
ics were m
rvice Firms – Wo
ningsson et
g of leaders
g. Denis et
viewing pra
ay’ and ‘in
d practices
ficult to act
cern the wit
the practic
nterviews f
l sampling,
ing and ex
raebner, 20
h we condu
es that form
xt was mos
anagerial a
oyed and in
employees
ip dynamic
(accountin
more self-co
orking Paper 01
t al., 2012)
ship.
al. (1996,
ctitioners it
the mome
s from the
tually study
thholding o
ces discuss
from four d
, i.e. “cases
xtending
007: 27). T
ucted to ex
med the foc
st relevant
authority an
nterview sa
s) we cond
cs operated
ng) firms op
ontained so
12 ‐ 2014
and
2010),
t is
ent’ by
y with
or
sed in
ifferent
s are
The four
xamine
cus of
(i.e. they
nd
ampling
ducted
d on a
perated a
o our
intervie
similarit
specific
ws focused
ties betwee
c to individu
d on a sing
en cases ra
ual cases.
Ca
gle country
ather than
ass Centre for P
15
y. Cross-ca
to identify
Professional Ser
ase analysis
and interp
rvice Firms – Wo
s was cond
pret idiosyn
orking Paper 01
ducted to d
ncratic issu
12 ‐ 2014
draw out
es
TASTU Firm
Firm
Firm
Firm
Firm
TO
BLE 1 UDY DATA
m D
m A L
m B Cg
m C Ae
m D Ae
TAL
Description
Law firm, 5,00
Consultancy globally
Accounting fiemployees in
Auditing firm,employees in
Ca
00 employee
firm, 1,500 e
rm, global firn the UK
global firm wn Sweden
ass Centre for P
16
es globally
employees
rm with 11,00
with 2,000
Professional Ser
NumbInterv 34
31
00 37
42
144
rvice Firms – Wo
ber of views
orking Paper 01
SupportingData
Observatiodocuments Documents
Observatiodocuments Observatiodocuments
12 ‐ 2014
g
ns,
s
ns,
ns,
In
The ma
answer
to evok
“What d
think of
a leade
encoura
Brinkma
intervie
Th
interpre
theoreti
made in
Pierce (
refining
thus “se
2010: 2
Th
associa
the view
and are
not broa
context
terviews w
ain focus w
rs to highly
ke the interv
does the co
f yourself a
er of [Firm X
aging the in
ann, 2009)
ws were tr
he data we
etation of d
ical analys
nterpretatio
(1906), is t
g theoretica
eeks out un
289).
he emphas
ated with ex
w of develo
e shaped b
adly prese
t of ambigu
were loosely
was to captu
directive q
viewees’ o
oncept of le
as a leader
X] and why
nterviewee
). Interview
ranscribed.
ere analyze
ata and fo
sis as well a
ons. The lo
to go from
al concepts
nexpected
sis through
xtensive in
oping a bet
by organiza
nt in leade
uous leade
Ca
y structure
ure the poi
questions.
opinion, exp
eadership
of [Firm X
y?”. More im
es to develo
ws were typ
.
ed abductiv
rmulation o
as re-interp
ogic of abd
data, to the
s as well as
data and c
out the ana
ndividual au
tter unders
ational cont
er/follower r
r–follower
ass Centre for P
17
d and narr
nt of view
Thus, our q
perience an
mean to yo
X], and “Wh
mportant, h
op and dee
pically sche
vely (Alves
of overarch
pretations a
uctive ana
eory, back
s re-interpr
creates new
alysis proc
utonomy an
standing of
text. We th
relations ge
relationshi
Professional Ser
ratively orie
of the resp
questions w
nd standpo
ou in the co
en did you
however, w
epen their
eduled for 9
son & Skö
hing theme
and recons
lysis, draw
k to data, an
reting empi
w concepts
cess was o
nd continge
how leade
herefore se
enerically b
ps.
rvice Firms – Wo
ented (Cza
pondent rat
were broad
oint. Examp
ontext of [F
u start to co
were the fo
response (
90 to 120 m
ldberg, 200
es were sub
siderations
wing on prag
nd so forth
irical data.
s to explain
n leadersh
ent manag
ership prac
arched for
but arose s
orking Paper 01
arniawska,
ther than g
d and open
ple questio
Firm X]?”, “
onsider you
llow-up qu
(Kvale &
minutes. Al
09), i.e.
bjected to
s of the alre
gmatist ph
h, continual
Abductive
n them” (A
hip-related
gerial autho
ctices both
practices t
specifically
12 ‐ 2014
1997).
getting
n in order
ons were
“Do you
urself as
estions,
ll
eady
ilosopher
lly
analysis
gar,
themes
ority, with
shape
that were
y from the
Th
interest
firms, w
process
identify
evidenc
evidenc
were el
recogni
was to
firms pr
not ove
refine th
overlap
concep
“interac
“enablin
appeari
“gaining
emergin
Th
our data
The firs
In the s
he interpre
t in the them
which emer
s. The seco
ing qualitie
ce of intere
ce of auton
ected or se
ized as lea
compare th
roposed by
erlooked an
he coding a
pping or wh
ptualization
cting politic
ng autonom
ing apolitic
g and susta
ng from the
he process
a from diffe
st step was
second step
tive proces
me of role
rged as com
ond step in
es, behavio
est in leade
nomy once
elected for
aders by fel
he data to
y Empson a
ny substant
and condu
hich needed
. So, for ex
cally” evolve
my whilst m
cal.” “Role-
aining legit
e data.
s of re-inter
erent persp
s based on
p, we analy
Ca
ss we adop
modeling a
mmon acro
ncluded sys
ors or other
ership or be
becoming
r formal lea
llow partne
the nine m
and Langle
tive theme
ct further a
d to be exp
xample, ea
ed to expre
maintaining
modelling
timacy thro
rpretation a
pectives an
direct inte
yzed the da
ass Centre for P
18
pted consti
as a part o
oss all case
stematic w
r requireme
eing offered
partner, e
adership po
ers regardle
manifestatio
ey (Forthco
s. The four
analysis to
panded to e
arly stage c
ess the par
g control” a
profession
ough marke
and inter-re
nd interpret
raction and
ata separa
Professional Ser
tuted four
of leadershi
es during t
working thro
ents of bei
d opportun
xplanation
ositions, an
ess of form
ons of leade
oming) to e
rth step inv
identify ide
encompas
codes such
radoxes ide
nd “interac
al behavio
et success”
esearcher i
t common
d co-analys
ately, each
rvice Firms – Wo
steps. The
ip in profes
he initial da
ough the da
ng elected
nities to dis
s of why in
nd why indi
mal position
ership in p
ensure that
volved retu
eas that we
s a broade
h as “enabl
entified in t
cting politic
urs” becam
” to reflect
interaction
themes fea
sis of the d
working on
orking Paper 01
e first step w
ssional serv
ata collecti
ata from al
partner (in
splay leade
ndividual pa
ividuals we
n. The third
rofessiona
t our analys
urning to th
ere linked a
er
ing autono
the data to
cally whilst
me focused
the empha
enabled u
aturing in a
data by bot
n our own
12 ‐ 2014
was an
vice
ion
l cases,
ncluding
ership),
artners
ere
d step
al service
sis had
e data to
and
omy” and
o become
d on
asis
us to see
all cases.
th of us.
cases,
respect
discuss
develop
regardin
analytic
interspe
analytic
as well
at the h
interpre
ORGAN
AND C
The cen
charact
explain
typically
cases t
though
quotes
intervie
As the S
autonom
tively. In th
sed and ref
ped and ref
ng the rela
cal process
ersed with
cal process
as rejected
heart of inte
etive creativ
NIZATIONA
ONTINGE
ntral purpo
terized by e
ed in the re
y present w
hat form th
Firm B wa
from interv
wee numb
Senior Par
my and ma
e third and
fined the co
fined the th
ation betwe
s consisted
periods of
s, interpreta
d during th
erpretive re
vity (Weick
AL CONTE
NT MANA
ose of this s
extensive i
eview of th
within profe
he basis of
as not in fac
views (lette
ber).
rtner from F
anagerial c
Ca
d fourth ste
oding. Betw
heoretical f
een ‘practic
d of periods
individual
ations were
he process.
esearch str
k, 1989).
EXT: EXTE
AGERIAL A
study was
individual a
he literature
essional se
this study
ct a partne
er and num
Firm A sum
control:
ass Centre for P
19
eps, the cod
ween the th
foundation
ces’ and ‘co
s when we
interpretive
e tested se
. While see
rategies, se
ENSIVE IN
AUTHORIT
to examine
autonomy a
e, these org
ervice firm
are typica
ership in leg
mber in brac
mmarizes th
Professional Ser
ded data w
hird and fo
for the an
ontext.’ Thu
were enga
e work. As
everal time
emingly cha
erving both
NDIVIDUAL
TY
e leadershi
and conting
ganizationa
partnership
l professio
gal form. T
ckets afterw
he tradeoff
rvice Firms – Wo
were re-rea
ourth step,
alysis sepa
us, the last
aged in dire
s a consequ
s, and idea
aotic at tim
h to enable
L AUTONO
ip practices
gent mana
al characte
ps. In this r
nal service
able 2 pres
wards deno
f between i
orking Paper 01
ad, and we
both of us
arately, par
t steps of t
ect collabo
uence, dur
as were ge
mes, this pr
e and restra
OMY
s in organiz
agerial auth
eristics are
respect the
e firms part
sents illust
otes firm a
individual
12 ‐ 2014
rticularly
he
oration
ring the
enerated
rocess is
ain
zations
hority. As
both
e four
tnerships,
trative
and
Pa
br
ce
The sen
within th
hierarch
power d
W
st
th
lea
ex
to
as
co
artners like
rothers… Y
entre. (A7)
nse of a pr
he partners
hy is fluid,
dynamics.
We have no
rong emph
at. What w
adership (e
xperienced
introduce
ssignments
ommercially
e to carry th
You can’t h
rofessional
ship. As an
and that le
administra
hasis on hie
we do have
emphasis a
d and have
the young
s, a form of
y. (D35)
Ca
he idea of a
ave too mu
communit
n interview
eadership p
ative or org
erarchies o
e is a profes
added). An
contacts, w
er colleagu
f leadershi
ass Centre for P
20
a partnersh
uch formal
ty is mainta
ee from Fi
practices e
ganizationa
or reporting
ssional com
nd it emana
who have s
ues and ma
p is require
Professional Ser
hip as a kin
ity or perce
ained throu
rm D expla
merge from
al leadersh
g structures
mmunity an
ates from o
strong clien
ake them a
ed, both pr
rvice Firms – Wo
nd of band
eived corpo
ughout the
ains, one im
m within th
ip in the se
s and such
nd in that w
older collea
nt relations
able to take
rofessional
orking Paper 01
of happy
oratism fro
firms, and
mplication i
ese ambig
ense of put
h. We don't
we find som
agues who
ships. And
e on these
ly and
12 ‐ 2014
om the
not only
is that
uous
tting a
t have
me sort of
are
in order
TABLE 2ORGANI
Fir
m A
Fir
m B
Fir
m C
Fir
m D
2 IZATIONAL
Extensive I Interviewer:over you? Partner: NotInterviewer:power over Partner: I do
The CEO anDirectors, Elot of those coordinatingthink we neecoordinationsure that coorganizationnot managinkind of thing So it’s not ait’s about (legiving peopnobody has
This compatelling anyonwere some set of peoplconsulting bend, with a needs to befinding out athe managemine or anyperson whasolving the p
CONTEXT:
Individual A
Does anyon
t as far as I’m Does anyonyou? on’t think so.
nd ChairmanExecutive Com
positions areg or communed supervisinn and about gohesion is insn, but definiteng, not policig. (B29)
about followineaders) enable outlets…. to follow any
ny is not basne else whatengineers ore designing t
business starclient who ha
e solved. Andabout this proer for that jobyone else’s bt to do, or hoproblem. (D2
Ca
PROFESSIO
Autonomy
ne have powe
m concernedne think they
(A8)
n, Board of mmittee etc. e really nicating - I dong. It’s more guiding or maside the ely not controng - no not th
ng in that senbling and direBecause frayone. (C9)
sed on anyont to, as if therr any other limthe jobs. … Trts at the otheas a problemd the consultaoblem becom. And then it usiness to te
ow to go abou25)
ass Centre for P
21
ONAL SERV
Con
er
no. have
The that throhappinflupoworga
… a
on’t about aking
olling, hat
I thinposisomto gepartyou to bewha
nse, ecting, nkly
My eif yoMy eget aservgrouteam
ne re mited The er
m that ant mes
is not ell this ut
It’s nambmorclea
Professional Ser
ICE FIRMS
ntingent Man
interesting tyou find thatugh other pepen by essen
uencers) whower has a diffeanizations. (A
nk we recognition in the fir
mething the paet a view of wners). I say –don’t want me a partner a
at we all love
experience oou stop refresexperience isa license to lvices but it acup. We’ve sems stop follow
not clear whabiguous circlere important tar. (D28)
rvice Firms – Wo
nagerial Aut
hing in this rot you can’t ac
eople… You cntially workin
o in turn influeerent meaninA7)
nize that anyrm is in a serartners ask ywhere we ne– I’m your seme in this roleand focus on to do best. (
of authority isshing it. I thins that you caead from aboctually has toen people gewing them. (C
at it looks likee of partners,than others, b
orking Paper 01
thority
ole (of Seniochieve anythcan only mak
ng with this gence the wideng I think to o
yone in a leadrvant leadersyou to do … Sed to go fromrvant leader e I’m more thclients becaB8)
s that it lasts ank of it as a licn, for a very ove in profes
o come from yet killed very C1)
e at the top. T, and some pbut this is an
12 ‐ 2014
or Partner) is ing except ke things roup (of key er group, so
other
dership hip role. It’s So I’m happym (the and frankly i
han happy jususe that’s
about an houcense to leadlimited time,
ssional your peer quickly if the
There is this partners are ything but
y
f st
ur d.
eir
What th
three se
environ
which w
is implic
leader b
The sec
tension
leaders
underst
political
PRACT
THROU
Our ana
necess
is this w
precond
Yo
bu
hen are the
ections exa
nment of ex
were strong
cit and is a
by your pe
cond leade
within the
ship practic
tood intuitiv
lly whilst ap
TICE 1: GA
UGH MARK
alysis dem
ary first to
which enab
ditions for b
ou always
usiness you
e implicatio
amine the t
xtensive ind
gly present
a requireme
ers: gainin
ership prac
partnersh
ce is covert
vely by ind
ppearing a
AINING AN
KET SUCC
onstrates t
gain the re
bles a profe
being perc
generate r
u will alway
Ca
ons for lead
three leade
dividual au
t in all four
ent for bein
ng and reta
ctice is ove
ip: enabling
t, denied o
ividuals ide
apolitical.
ND RETAIN
CESS
that, in ord
espect of y
essional to
ceived as a
respect if y
ys generat
ass Centre for P
22
dership pra
ership prac
utonomy an
the cases
ng accepte
ining legitim
rt, clearly u
g autonom
r at least n
entified by
NING LEG
er to gain a
your colleag
have visib
a potential l
ou are a "h
te respect.
Professional Ser
actices in s
ctices ident
nd continge
analyzed.
d (and in s
macy to lea
understood
my whilst re
ot acknow
their peers
ITIMACY T
and retain
gues throug
bility and in
eader. As
heavy hitte
(A13)
rvice Firms – Wo
uch a cont
tified as dis
ent manage
The first le
some cases
ad through
d as coexis
etaining con
wledged exp
s as effecti
TO LEAD
legitimacy
gh your pro
fluence, bo
one intervi
r". If you b
orking Paper 01
text? The fo
stinctive to
erial autho
eadership p
s elected)
h market su
sting in a dy
ntrol. The t
plicitly but
ive leaders
y to lead, it
ofessional
oth necess
iewee expl
ring in lots
12 ‐ 2014
ollowing
the
ority and
practice
as a
uccess.
ynamic
hird
s: acting
is
work. It
sary
lains:
of
In all of
most im
lead. Ta
f the cases
mportant an
able 3 pres
s in the curr
nd fundame
sents a sel
Ca
rent study,
ental requi
ection of re
ass Centre for P
23
success in
rement for
epresentat
Professional Ser
n the mark
r gaining an
tive quotes
rvice Firms – Wo
ketplace em
nd retaining
from all ca
orking Paper 01
merges as b
g the legitim
ases.
12 ‐ 2014
by far the
macy to
Fir
m A
Pathe Onpe I thbecclie
Fir
m B
LeaI nepa YoyouYoon Evaropeopra
Fir
m C
Toas or adv ThthrrelaTh I'vehaveasof goowo
Fir
m D
Thcommato … Ththe Whcon(D
GAINING
artners tend toey respect as
ne of the reasrceived to be
hink a lot of thcause those ent and so onadership in tecessarily harticularly resp
ou can't be a ur colleagues
ou have to haly propose b
veryone on thound the partople who areactice. (B2) be the persoChairman, ywhatever it isvancement. (
ey earn the rrough enhancationship thaey have the
e dealt with sving won thasiest one eithmajor client)od partner. Y
ork. (C18) e role of the mpany. Hereanagers in anbecome a suget you to do
ose who are ey are good t
hat is particunsultants. An12)
& RETAININ
o want to be s business ge
sons I think we a successfu
he leadershippeople have
n and in the ehis firm is a fave been thepected as a c
leader withos as a succe
ave a demonsut also dispo
he global ExCtnership, youe perceived w
on who actuayou've got thes, that's what(C7)
right to get incing the valuat we didn’t hrespect of th
some of our mat. I'm also sther. And, eve. ...So if I put
You know, on
manager is, e, I’d say, theny sense. Rauccessful cono fun things.
leaders in thtax lawyers. (
lar of the orgnd they contin
Ca
NG LEGITIM
led by partnenerators. (A
why people wul Banking pa
p in a firm is e the credibiliend all that wfunction of one best consultclient relation
ut having cressful client estrated track
ose. (B27)
Com has alreu would not ewithin the firm
ally runs somere because t people resp
nto one of thoe of the partnave before, oe partners be
most difficult ill currently then now I’ve bt my little egone of the top
in this busine leader playsather it is the nsultant. GooAnd earn a l
his organizati(D5)
ganization is tnue consultin
ass Centre for P
24
TABLE 3
MACY TO LEA
ers and in faA14)
were happy toartner… I ran
linked to youty, those peo
we do is ultimnes credibilitytant in our firnship person
edibility as a xecutor, I dorecord of ha
eady been anexpect an eyem as being ve
mething: eitheyou've been
pect first and
ose positionsnership becaor won a majecause they’
audits. So I'vhe partner onbecome heado hat on for apartners, I su
ess, less imps a bigger rolclearly shinin
od, successfulot of money.
ion are not th
that those whng on a full ti
Professional Ser
AD THROUG
ct they tend
o have me asn a lot of our
ur practice anople are in th
mately directey as a profesrm but I’m res – without tha
practitioner ion't think youraving delivere
n office leadeebrow to be rery strong pe
er runs a func outstandingforemost in
s through ... dause they’ve jor piece of w’re recognize
ve been the n (name of md of the audita moment I wuppose, and
portant than ile … That is,ng people whul tax consult. That’s what
hat because
ho become leme basis eve
rvice Firms – Wo
GH MARKET
to want to be
s Senior Partkey relations
nd the positioe market, the
ed towards clssional, in whspected as aat I cannot le
n this firm. Sr proposals ced, of being s
er. And they'reraised at theierformers in t
ction, runs a with clients. our firm. So
doing fantastieither develo
work and doned for doing th
partner on (nmajor client) a
practice; I'mwas sort of, yo
one that can
in for exampl people who
ho, in their watants who sht we ultimatel
they are goo
eaders are then though the
orking Paper 01
T SUCCESS
e led by partn
tner, becauseships and so
on in the marey actually knients. (A1)
hat we do – I a professionaead. (B11)
So if you're nocarry as muchsomebody wh
e people whor appointmenheir market o
service line, Whether it'sthat's the key
ic stuff with coped a client ne that consishat. (C14)
name of majoand that's not
m just going oou know, seen get out ther
le a manufacdon’t have to
ay of being, sow a way of ly want to do
od leaders bu
hose who areey are mana
12 ‐ 2014
ners who
e I was on. (A7)
rket now the
don’t think al and
ot seen by h weight. ho cannot
o generally nt - the or in their
or ends up s leadership y to
clients,
stently...
or client) t the
onto (name en to be a re and win
cturing o be show how being that
o.(D25)
ut because
e good gers.
Market
“outstan
icing on
as bring
establis
W
retainin
such as
importa
Le
an
on
re
Yet, as
‘technic
significa
work in
2004). S
image o
ways, th
as succ
are mor
success is
nding with
n the cake.
ging in wor
shed clients
While succe
ng the legiti
s quality of
ant.
eadership i
nd you nee
nly way you
espected by
demonstra
cal’ profess
ant indicato
general is
Showing m
of the comm
hen, marke
cessful in s
re than jus
s about “be
clients” (C
” (A4). Tha
rk, either by
s or by ope
ss in the m
imacy to le
f advice an
in a firm th
ed to be cre
u can be cr
y your part
ated in Tab
sional com
or of fitnes
s ambiguou
market succ
mitment to
et success
selling work
st highly sk
Ca
eing strong
C7) and “ea
at is, marke
y winning s
ening up en
market is th
ead, the mo
d ability to
at is based
edible vis-à
redible is if
tners. (B15
ble 3, mark
petencies.
s for leade
us and the
cess in term
o the firm a
comes to
k, aspiring
illed techni
ass Centre for P
25
performer
arn(ing) a lo
et success
substantial
ntirely new
he most fun
ore ‘technic
delivery ex
d on profes
à-vis your c
f you are e
5)
ket success
Why is thi
ership? One
results diff
ms of e.g.
nd its value
symbolize
leaders de
icians but h
Professional Ser
rs in the ma
ot of money
is defined
and high-
w areas of b
ndamental
cal’ aspects
xemplary s
ssional valu
co-partners
xercising t
s ultimately
s market s
e reasons
ficult to clea
billable hou
es (Alvehu
profession
emonstrate
have a bro
rvice Firms – Wo
arket” (B2)
y” (D25). “E
within thes
profile ass
business.
element of
s of profes
service, are
ues require
s. And in th
he profess
y serves as
success se
may be be
arly evalua
urs provide
us & Spicer
nal proficie
e to their co
ader persp
orking Paper 01
, having be
Everything
se firms pr
ignments f
f gaining a
ssional prac
e also deem
es a lot of r
he long term
sion in a wa
s a litmus t
en as such
ecause prof
ate (Alvess
es an unam
r, 2012). In
ncy. By be
olleagues th
pective of c
12 ‐ 2014
een
else is
rimarily
from
nd
ctice,
med
respect
m, the
ay that is
est for
h a
fessional
on,
mbiguous
many
eing seen
hat they
client
needs a
to comm
Th
ultimate
aspect
success
work ha
worked
colleag
I t
de
th
The gai
has bee
in the p
promote
experie
I d
as
it’,
cla
and, by imp
mercial suc
he partners
ely generat
notwithsta
sful in the m
ard. In orde
hard and
ues.
think that p
ecision ma
ey are goin
ining of leg
en through
past. Comm
ed to posit
ence with a
did more bi
sk people t
, so therefo
assic mista
plication, th
ccess.
s value an
te profits a
nding, ther
market. It d
er to gain le
have made
professiona
king and a
ng through
gitimacy the
it all, and
mercial suc
ions of aut
a less politic
illable hour
to do some
ore they fo
ake of cutti
Ca
he comme
individual
nd reputat
re are also
demonstra
egitimacy,
e the perso
al service p
uthority fro
h. (C2)
ereby take
is willing to
ccess must
thority. One
cally astute
rs than any
ething, you
llow that. T
ng right ba
ass Centre for P
26
rcial acume
partner’s c
ional bene
strong sym
tes to colle
potential le
onal sacrific
practitioners
om someon
s on a very
o do so aga
be mainta
e Firm A pr
e colleague
y other pra
get a lot m
The bankin
ack on his p
Professional Ser
en needed
commercial
fits for them
mbolic asp
eagues tha
eaders mu
ces they w
s … will ac
ne that they
y concrete
ain. But it i
ained. This
ractice hea
e’s.
ctice group
more respe
g guy who
practice an
rvice Firms – Wo
d to lead th
l success b
mselves al
ects assoc
at you know
st show th
will be askin
ccept almos
y think und
embodied
s not enou
continues
ad contrast
p head… I
ct if they th
o's very, ve
nd becomin
orking Paper 01
eir fellow p
because it
so. This pe
ciated with
w what it m
at they hav
ng of their
st unlimited
derstands t
form. The
ugh to have
after being
ts his own
always find
hink ‘well h
ry good, m
ng full-time
12 ‐ 2014
partners
should
ecuniary
being
eans to
ve
d
the things
leader
e done so
g
d if you
e's doing
made a
e
m
do
Showin
firm is v
Howeve
non-par
abilities
Th
in
But eve
a found
to be pr
authorit
PRACT
As note
partner
In
as
anagemen
oing that. Y
ng that you
vital if your
er, market
rtners inter
s. As a part
hey may be
the sector
en if, accor
dation of leg
romoted an
ty.
TICE 2: EN
ed in the in
said, “Fran
essence,
s you do it
nt. And that
You have to
can “still c
colleague
success is
rviewed in
tner in Firm
e the guys
r, but does
rding to som
gitimacy on
nd accepte
NABLING A
troduction,
nkly nobod
nobody int
and delive
Ca
t doesn't w
o be able to
cut it” and d
s are to en
s an imprec
Firm D in p
m C expres
with the be
it actually
me partner
n which ind
ed by their
AUTONOM
, a core as
dy has to fo
terferes reg
r high qual
ass Centre for P
27
work in a fir
o show you
demonstrat
ntrust you w
cise proxy
particular e
ssed it;
est industr
equate to
rs, it is “just
dividuals a
peers to le
MY WHILS
pect of pro
ollow anyon
garding wh
lity. (D24)
Professional Ser
m like ours
u can still c
ting your co
with formal
for leaders
expressed
ry capability
leadership
t credentia
re able to d
ead the in t
T RETAIN
ofessional w
ne” (C9). O
hen you wo
rvice Firms – Wo
s. You do lo
cut it. (A11
ontinual co
authority t
ship capab
discontent
y, they may
p? That’s ju
als”, these c
develop the
he absenc
ING CONT
work is aut
One in Firm
ork and how
orking Paper 01
ose credib
)
ommitment
to lead the
ility. Sever
t with their
y have a b
ust credent
credentials
e informal
ce of forma
TROL
tonomy. A
m D explain
w you work
12 ‐ 2014
ility
t to the
m.
ral of the
leaders’
ig client
ials. (C9)
s provide
authority
l
Firm C
ned:
k, as long
But this
degree
are doin
reputati
appear
some e
anarchi
profess
Ul
that the
perform
ultimate
firm is t
perpetu
autonom
authorit
Pa
sa
th
isn
This me
during t
s comment
of manage
ng the wor
ion of the p
to seek to
extent acco
ies operatin
sional servi
ltimately th
e activities
mance targe
ely one of t
to maintain
uating the p
my whilst r
ty, is summ
artners say
ay ‘it’s chao
e money is
n’t within c
eans that fo
their trainin
about auto
ement supe
rk and doin
partnership
maximize
ommodate
ng on a ha
ce firms.
he leaders
of individua
ets as agre
the most im
n control wh
perception
retaining co
marised by
y ‘you’re to
otic, get tig
s going dow
control of th
ormal man
ng process
Ca
onomy ma
ervision: ho
g it to a su
p? Certainly
it; and lea
this perspe
aphazard b
do exercis
al partners
eed by the
mportant le
hilst minim
of autonom
ontrol withi
the Senior
o tight’ and
ghter’. If the
wn, you ca
he Senior P
nagement is
s, younger
ass Centre for P
28
y be some
ow else ca
ufficiently h
y partners
ders within
ective withi
asis; they a
e a degree
s are aligne
partnershi
eadership p
izing the p
my. This ba
n an enviro
r Partner in
d they say
e money is
an’t do anyt
Partner. (C
s minimize
partners ar
Professional Ser
ewhat dising
an partners
igh standa
espouse th
n the firms
in their rhe
are highly
e of control
ed with the
p. As demo
practices w
erception o
alancing ac
onment of
n Firm C.
‘get looser
going up,
thing. But t
1)
ed. Instead
re to some
rvice Firms – Wo
genuous a
s be sure th
ard to prote
he rhetoric
acknowled
etoric. Yet t
successful
, primarily
strategic g
onstrated i
within a prof
of being m
ct, between
contingent
r’. So you g
you can do
the money
, just as th
e extent gui
orking Paper 01
as it does im
hat their co
ect the colle
c of autono
dge this an
these firms
l global
around en
goals and
in Table 4,
fessional s
anaged an
n enabling
t manageri
get looser a
o what you
going up o
ey were m
ided by mo
12 ‐ 2014
mply a
olleagues
ective
my, and
d to
s are not
suring
service
nd
al
and they
u like. If
or down
entored
ore
experie
the info
interest
mechan
D (see
An expe
of expe
respons
I t
ab
th
jus
be
to
enced partn
ormal hiera
ts of the pa
nisms or si
above), in
erienced p
erienced an
sibilities as
think the yo
bout what t
ey will eith
st coming
est out of p
do. So it s
ners that th
rchy, with
artnership a
mply throu
the “profes
partner from
nd less exp
s leaders a
ounger par
the firm is a
her follow o
up with the
people. I th
sort of happ
Ca
hey particu
partners ac
as a whole
ugh encour
ssional com
m Firm A re
perienced p
nd followe
rtners want
as a whole
or not, beca
e prompts a
ink that’s w
pens. (A8)
ass Centre for P
29
larly respe
ccepting co
e, whether i
ragement a
mmunity” th
eflects on t
partners wh
rs:
t you to spe
e doing and
ause it’s no
and ideas t
what they e
Professional Ser
ct. In this w
onstraints o
imposed th
and rhetoric
hey “find so
he distincti
hen it come
end more t
d … to prov
ot telling the
to maximiz
expect som
rvice Firms – Wo
way leader
on their ac
hrough info
c. As put b
ome sort o
ion betwee
es to their
time (than
vide though
em what to
ze the busin
me of the m
orking Paper 01
rship occur
ctions in the
ormal discip
by a partne
of leadersh
en the expe
roles and
them) think
ht leadersh
o do; it’s ac
ness and g
more senior
12 ‐ 2014
rs within
e
plining
r in Firm
ip” (D35).
ectations
king
hip which
ctually
get the
r partners
TABLE 4ENABLIN
Fir
m A
F
irm
B
Fir
m C
F
irm
D
4 NG AUTONO
Enabling A You can’t recan say whahope peoplepeople you who are mothe businesscontrol the c [The Chairmmanagemenright. If I looto do some and it’s not w
One of the tabout the ormuch respowill allow it. have to go aimportant assure that weextent the caorganizationgot? (C6) Most of us kmove towardbusiness anevery partneothers care going to do may interferand so on, tbusiness. (D
OMY WHILS
Autonomy
eally tell peopat you’re goine will agree wcan least tellst important s. Because tclient relation
man’s] classicnt in this firmk at my last tmanagemenworked. (B17
things that I hrganization isnsibility as yoBut they don
and take it. Aspect of leade mine to theapabilities ofn because wh
know what tods common g
nd agreeing oer works, thavery little abosomething s
re, but how ythat’s each aD6)
Ca
ST MAINTAIN
ple what to dong to do and with it ... and what to do afor the succehey are the o
nships. (A17)
c line is ‘I don’… And I thinthree years,
nt stuff in [cou7)
have always s that you takou want. Andn’t offer it to yAnd I think an
ership is to m fullest possif the people ihat else have
o do anyway. goals for the on those. Butat’s somethingout. Sure, if ypecial, then oou work withnd everyone
ass Centre for P
30
NING CONTR
M
o. You then the are those ess of ones who )
Btocbhae
n’t want nk he’s I’ve tried untry]
Wpawgp
liked ke as d people you, you n make ble n the
e we
AaTdts
Things
t how g that you’re others
h clients ’s
Isintaincsninht
Professional Ser
ROL
Maintaining
Because we ao have a mocan’t just simbecause you hard earned cand balancesentrepreneur
We’re all leadpart of the stoand that’s whwe went througuess what, tpressure’s on
At the same tare peers, theThere do needecisions mahat sort of thstep in and sa
’d say part ofsome things bndividual shoasks. If they nstead of on charge for thasomething weno) administrn the sense thierarchies ohings. We do
rvice Firms – Wo
Control
are the size wre regulated ply go off anare deprivingcash. So thes and I think tialism. (A9)
ders…that’s tory and that’shat I expect thugh the globathere was non, they expec
time even thoere do need ed to be tougade on whereing. … knoway no, yes. (C
f the leadersbecome morouldn’t have tdid, they’d sclient work,
at time. It is be can chargerative or orgathat we put ar reporting ston't have tha
orking Paper 01
we are now, set of rules. d do what yog other peopre has to be that stops a b
the narratives exactly whahem to say. Bal financial c
o argument. Wct me to lead
ough all the pto be decisioh things don
e we’re goingwing when yoC14)
hip is to ensure efficient. Eto handle all pend their timand then we
better that thee for. … (But anizational leaa strong emptructures andt. (D35)
12 ‐ 2014
we have … You
ou want ple of their checks bit of
, that’s at I say But when risis, When the . (B33)
partners ons made. e or to invest, u have to
ure that ach routine
me on that cannot ey do we have adership hasis on
d such
Leaders
leaders
firms. T
these a
comme
generic
I t
se
an
we
wa
While c
directio
“inspira
comme
should
in every
Thus, w
in the c
more le
ship “sort o
ship, many
They refer t
are commo
ent from Fir
c in charact
think leade
ense of dire
nd people.
e be better
ant to work
common, ta
on” (C8) is v
ation” and “
ents by inte
achieve (c
yday work
while profes
context of th
eadership is
of happens
present a
to concepts
n themes i
rm C demo
ter and cou
rship here
ection, visio
It’s about t
r than the o
k with us? (
alking of “s
vague and
“strategy” (
erviewees r
cf. Carroll &
practice (A
ssionals ca
he firms is
s needed:
Ca
s”, yet whe
more conv
s such as “
n popular
onstrate, so
uld apply in
is about a
on, ambitio
trying to ar
other firms?
(C14)
etting the r
abstract a
e.g. C14 a
rehearse g
& Levy, 200
Alvesson &
an certainly
not particu
ass Centre for P
31
n interview
ventional vi
“vision” and
notions of
ome intervi
n any organ
number of
on, purpose
rticulate wh
? Why is it
right tone,
and other s
above) are
eneric talk
08). This ki
& Sveningss
y talk the le
ularly clear
Professional Ser
wees are ex
iew of the r
d “direction
leadership
ewee’s sta
nizational c
f things. I t
e that reso
hat is differ
that you a
setting a v
imilarly vag
also comm
k about lead
ind of talk i
son, 2003c
eadership t
r. Thus, som
rvice Firms – Wo
xplicitly ask
role of lead
n”. This is n
p in genera
atements a
context.
hink it is ab
onates with
rent about o
as a client o
vision, (and
gue terms
mon. Large
dership and
is, howeve
c; Svenings
talk, what t
me intervie
orking Paper 01
ked about
dership wit
not surprisi
l. As this ill
are indeed v
bout provid
the other
our firm, w
or partner w
d) strategic
such as “a
ly these kin
d what lea
r, difficult t
sson et al.,
this actually
ewees state
12 ‐ 2014
hin these
ing as
lustrative
very
ding a
partners
why would
would
ambition,”
nds of
dership
to enact
, 2012).
y means
e that
Lo
it.
sh
The pro
partner
Control
subtle p
PRACT
The las
is implic
apolitica
appear
profess
behavio
present
abhorre
profess
ots of peop
But they a
how them t
oblem, how
s as interfe
is maintai
political ski
TICE 3: INT
st of the thr
cit and Pra
al, is cover
to be apol
sionals with
or. The sub
ted as thre
ence of pol
sed belief th
ple here are
are. They d
there was a
wever, is th
ering with t
ned in sub
lls.
TERACTIN
ree practice
actice 2 is o
rt. In order
itical (acco
hin the firm
btle and co
ee distinct b
itical beha
hat effectiv
Ca
e crying ou
do what the
a better wa
at such ov
their autono
btler and les
NG POLITI
es identifie
overt, Prac
to be acce
ording to no
). Yet thes
overt nature
but intertwi
vior, 2) ado
ve leaders
ass Centre for P
32
ut for leade
ey do but if
ay of doing
vert leaders
omy and th
ss obtrusiv
CALLY W
ed is perhap
tice 3, inte
epted by th
otions of po
se individua
e of this thi
ned sets o
option of p
are “above
Professional Ser
rship, you
f somebody
it, they’d f
ship activity
hus be met
ve ways – a
WHILST AP
ps the mos
racting pol
eir peers a
olitical beh
als are in fa
rd practice
of beliefs an
olitical lang
e politics”.
rvice Firms – Wo
know, they
y could ins
follow that.
y could be
t with resis
and, accord
PPEARING
st subtle. W
itically whi
as leaders,
havior as de
act engagin
e becomes
nd behavio
guage and
orking Paper 01
y just don’t
pire them a
(C9)
perceived
stance or d
dingly, this
G APOLITIC
Whereas Pr
le appearin
profession
efined by
ng in highly
clearer if
ors: 1) profe
practices,
12 ‐ 2014
t realize
and
by
isdain.
s requires
CAL
ractice 1
ng
nals must
y political
essed
and 3)
TABLE 5INTERACPart 1: PIf somebdiminishe This firm One of thyou becacorporate I mean ththe firm w[slams haneed to dterms of Part 2: AThe role they ema The prevwere domnumber oinfluencepromises You goveconstituti (One of tedgy andHe had wyou are gsaying) ‘wpulling thPart 3: B(You neein my viepolitical, Sometimis. He’s vsome of player in genuine It’s typicaright thin I think it’spersonalvery brigan analyt
5 CTING POLI
Professed abody has a poed within the
is a structur
he things thaause they doe, because I'
his organizatwho will say fand on table]do along the what they th
Adoption of involves us b
ail us or call u
vious electionminant charaof the more se…. It was alls being made
ern by your mional power t
the candidated challengingworked out thgoing to attrawe’ll knock dheir weight.’(CBelieving effed to be) straew, the best wyou lose a lo
mes my sensevery modest those things that way at aand clean. (A
al of the partng. And so the
s all about tru, this is the vht, very inteltical way, it’s
ITICALLY Wbhorrence oolitical score firm. (B1)
re where crea
t is great abon't want to dom almost co
ion is no diffefrom quite an], ‘do you thinway?’… Andink people wpolitical lanbeing seen aus we have t
n for Senior Pacters within tsenior partnel closed doore to various s
mandate andthat’s given t
es in the elecg of all the cahat in order toact the more jdown some oC3) fective leadeaight with peoway of playinot of the trust
e would be (Sabout it, quitthat might b
all. … it’s simA19)
ners who've ey don't get i
ust… Peopleview, and tholectual, quiet
s quite a cold
Ca
WHILST APPEof political beto settle and
ating enemie
out the firm iso something.mpletely apo
erent to mann early age tonk I’m in the d they’re rega
will want to heguage and p
as acting as to call back a
Partner therethe organizat
ers including trs – smoke fisenior people
your persono you. (A7)
ction campaigandidates ando win enoughjunior partne
of the more se
ers to be “abople even if yng it… If you’rt (A34).
Senior Partnee self-effacine under the h
mply because
been in the finvolved in po
e who just tellose people hatly spoken bu way but it’s
ass Centre for P
33
EARING APehaviour that agenda
s or politickin
s that there's.... It's one ofolitical. (B23)
y others. Theo you, particuframe to be arded as quitear and what practicesthe servants and we have
was a bit of tion and (perthe outgoinglled rooms –
e to get them
nal credibility
gn for Chairmd at times agh votes his beers you appeaenior partner
bove politicsyou tell them re seen as be
er) doesn’t neng, and he hiheading of cre his own mo
firm for quiteolitics. But th
l it straight, inave the higheut articulate, wnot personal
Professional Ser
OLITICAL
a becomes tra
ng is wholly u
s no vindictivef the reasons
ere are peopularly over a Managing Pate pushy, willthey think pe
of the partneto help them
a power strurson) held sw Senior Partn lots of politic
m to support (
and authorit
man), his videggressive towest opportunal to their desrs who are ea
s”.bad things, ieing slippery
ecessarily alwmself doesn’reeping as in
otivations in th
a long time, hey are aware
n a non-persoest respect, liwill just tell yl, he’s trusted
rvice Firms – Wo
ansparent, th
unproductive
e politics abos I could neve
ple who are cbeer or over artner or Senl be more poeople will wa
ers. We have, be seen to
uggle betweeway on the baner who had cking etc. etcperson). (C6
y not by virtu
eo and manifwards the incuity was the msire for improarning a load
f you’re straiy, just saying
ways unders’t attach such
n slightly sinishis world are
that they're ae of stuff goin
onal way, it’sike (person),
you it straightd. (A12)
orking Paper 01
hat person is
. (B21)
out people wher survive in a
learly very amr a meal or ovnior Partner, wlitical in their
ant to vote for
our constitube helpful. (A
en two individasis of suppoquite a lot of
c. etc. – a var)
ue of some ki
festo were thumbent leade
more junior paoved profitabd of money bu
ght with peothings to be
stand how infh great imporster. He is noe so, I think, v
actually tryingng on. (C12)
s not vindictiv is a straight t, it’s not pers
12 ‐ 2014
ho upset a
mbitious in ver a chat what is it I
r views in r. (A2)
ents, when A34)
duals who ort from a f riety of
ind of
he most ership … artners. If ility (by ut not
ple that’s, highly
fluential he rtance to ot himself a very
g to do the
ve, it’s not forward,
sonal, it’s
In all of
behavio
serving
of the p
To
sc
de
as
be
This pro
becaus
leaders
political
election
politicia
consen
groups,
acknow
use to d
Intervie
organiz
of powe
f the firms s
or (e.g. “I h
behavior o
partnership
o me politic
cenes. It sm
eliver fait a
s someone
ehaviors. (B
ofessed ab
e professio
s need a hig
l parties, e
n hustings,
an, a leade
sus among
, and to off
wledge this
describe th
ewees, ther
zational pol
er as well a
studied inte
hate politics
or acting to
p as a whol
cs smacks
macks of p
ccompli or
e undermin
B11)
bhorrence o
onal partne
gh degree
lections ar
and talk o
r within a p
g his collea
fer incentiv
political di
heir role an
refore, perc
litics within
as ownersh
Ca
erviewees
s.” (B12)).
o advance
e:
of alliance
eople engi
r in ways th
ing anothe
of politics (
erships to s
of political
re held, req
of “constitue
professiona
agues, to m
ves to indiv
mension w
d behavior
ceive that t
n profession
hip in these
ass Centre for P
34
expressed
Politics is t
your indivi
e building in
neering ag
hat become
er person. I
(see Table
some exten
skill to infl
quiring the
ents” and “
al service f
make trade
iduals to le
within these
rs of their c
there is so
nal partner
e firms. As
Professional Ser
d an abhorr
typically de
dual intere
n the corrid
gendas, wh
e disruptive
would like
5: Part 1)
nt resemble
luence the
issuing of
“the elector
firm needs
-offs betwe
end him or
e firms imp
colleagues
mething di
rships, refle
one interv
rvice Firms – Wo
rence of ap
escribed in
ests rather
dors, in offi
hich creep
e. Or politic
e to think w
is particula
e political p
ir colleagu
manifestos
rate”. Seco
to build an
een compe
her their s
plicitly in the
(see Table
stinctive ab
ecting the d
viewee in F
orking Paper 01
pparent po
terms of s
than the in
ces behind
up on the f
cs could m
we don’t hav
arly remark
parties and
es. Firstly,
s, the organ
ondly, as w
nd sustain
eting intere
upport. Le
e language
e 5: Part 2)
bout the na
distributed
irm C expr
12 ‐ 2014
litical
self-
nterests
d the
firm and
anifest
ve those
kable
d their
as with
nizing of
with a
st
aders
e they
).
ature of
nature
ressed it:
I t
of
th
lev
ph
This ap
privileg
leaders
whilst th
themse
allow th
persuad
themse
Th
be
be
hi
As dem
politics”
(A19) ra
think the le
f cadre of h
ere is som
vel of politi
harmaceuti
pparent par
es skillful p
s persuade
hey are ris
elves in the
hem a degr
de their pe
elves perso
he partners
est – for the
elieve that
m or her. (
monstrated
”. To win th
ather than
vel of polit
highly paid
mething abo
ics, which y
icals comp
radox (of d
politicians)
their peers
ing to the t
e role of foll
ree of form
eers that the
onally (thou
ship as a w
em and on
and trust th
B23)
in Table 5
he trust of t
“slippery” (
Ca
ics and pe
(partners)
out needing
you wouldn
pany. (C5)
enigrating
can be rec
s that they
top of their
lowers bec
mal authority
ey are amb
ugh, of cou
whole trusts
nly for them
hat, then th
: Part 3, ef
their peers
(A34), “cre
ass Centre for P
35
rsonality h
… people
g to keep a
n’t get if we
political be
conciled by
y are not pe
r organizati
cause they
y over the
bitious for t
rse, the tw
s the leade
m, for the go
here's no re
ffective lead
s, leaders m
eeping” and
Professional Ser
ere is diffe
who own t
all 500 part
e were an
ehavior wh
y recognizi
ersonally a
ions. Their
trust these
partnershi
the partner
wo are not m
er, that he's
ood of the
eason to p
ders must
must be see
d “slightly s
rvice Firms – Wo
erent becau
the client re
ners happy
engineerin
ilst creating
ng that the
mbitious o
peers are
e individua
p. These in
rship rathe
mutually ex
s going to r
partnershi
put any othe
be seen to
en as “gen
sinister” (A
orking Paper 01
use you ha
elationship
y which bri
ng company
g a structu
e more skill
r “pushy” (A
willing to c
ls sufficien
ndividuals
r than for
xclusive).
resolve it fo
p. As long
er kind of h
o be “above
nuine and c
19). Leade
12 ‐ 2014
ve a sort
ps. So
ings a
y or a
ure which
lful
A2),
cast
ntly to
or the
as they
hold on
e
clean”
ers must
convinc
behavio
W
po
pa
ar
Yet indi
to work
political
persona
Global
apparen
these fi
It
an
ou
an
or
ca
ce their pee
or is conce
We have peo
olitically to
artners will
re more like
ividuals op
k politically
l skills – wh
al ambition
Head of H
nt paradox
rms.
is importan
nd political
ut of empat
nd unspoke
rganization
an’t have in
ers that the
eptualized w
ople in lea
keep their
recognize
ely to crash
perating in a
to keep the
hether they
ns or their a
uman Reso
x of denigra
nt to disting
savvyness
thy and the
en, and jus
n … Withou
nfluence. (A
Ca
ey are not “
within these
dership po
position…
that, and i
h and burn
a highly po
eir position
y are utilizi
ambitions f
ources, wh
ating politic
guish betw
s, which is
e ability to
st what goe
ut it you are
A19)
ass Centre for P
36
“political” in
e firms.
ositions who
The one w
is more like
n. (C4)
oliticized en
n, may in fa
ng them co
for the firm
ho was not
cal behavio
ween the so
absolutely
see and ab
es on sort o
e in real tro
Professional Ser
n the crude
o don’t app
who does (l
ely to susta
nvironment
act be depl
onsciously
as whole.
herself a p
or whilst pri
ort of politic
y essential.
bsorb and
of implicitly
ouble beca
rvice Firms – Wo
e sense in
pear to be
eadership)
ain the role
t who do n
oying high
or not, or t
An intervie
partner) rec
ivileging po
cal ego, wh
And that s
understand
y. I think is
use if you
orking Paper 01
which polit
having to w
) more natu
e. And the o
ot appear t
hly sophistic
to fulfill the
ewee in Fir
conciles th
olitical skill
hich doesn’
savvyness
d what is s
critical in t
don’t have
12 ‐ 2014
tical
work
urally,
others
to have
cated
eir
rm A (the
he
within
’t work,
is borne
spoken
his
e it you
The nee
partner
but it is
crude w
downpl
fact be
form the
Quite th
denigra
DISCUS
FOLLO
Returni
extensiv
profess
profess
practice
ambigu
leaders
Th
service
conting
they are
organiz
ed to conti
put it, auth
important
way in whic
ay the polit
of very pol
e basis of l
he contrary
ating blatan
SSION AN
OWERSHIP
ng to the u
ve individu
sionals exe
sional servi
e literature
uous power
ship practic
he paper h
firms that
ent manag
e manifeste
zational con
nuously re
hority “lasts
to seem a
ch political
tical nature
litical. Con
leader legi
y; by downp
nt political e
ND CONCL
P AND DIS
underlying
ual autonom
ercise leade
ce firms th
by explicit
r dynamics
ces are bot
as identifie
emerge fro
gerial autho
ed, and su
ntext in pro
Ca
einforce aut
s about an
political wh
behavior is
e of the firm
sequently
timacy (Pra
playing the
efforts, an
LUSIONS:
SPLAYING
research q
my and con
ership? Ba
his study ha
tly address
s within org
h context-c
ed three dis
om the con
ority. Table
mmarises
ofessional s
ass Centre for P
37
thority is ac
hour if you
hile so doin
s understoo
ms. Behavi
ideas of pr
actice 1), a
e politicalne
image of p
ALLOWIN
RELUCTA
question, in
ntingent ma
sed on a c
as contribu
sing previou
ganizations
creating an
stinctive le
ntext of ext
e 6 identifie
their implic
service firm
Professional Ser
cknowledg
u stop refre
ng. It can b
od within th
or not fram
rofessional
are not thre
ess of certa
professiona
NG FOR AU
ANT LEAD
n organizat
anagerial a
cross-case
uted to the
usly neglec
s affect lead
nd context-
adership p
ensive ind
es these, h
cations for
ms.
rvice Firms – Wo
ged by inter
eshing it” (C
be argued,
hese firms
med as “po
lism and m
eatened wi
ain behavio
alism is ma
UTONOMO
DERSHIP
tions chara
authority, h
analysis o
emerging l
cted theme
dership pra
-dependent
practices w
ividual auto
ighlights th
power dyn
orking Paper 01
rviewees; a
C1, see Ta
therefore,
actually se
litical” can
meritocracy,
thin these
ors and by
aintained.
OUS
acterized by
how do sen
f four globa
leadership
es of : 1) ho
actices, an
t.
ithin profes
onomy and
he manner
namics and
12 ‐ 2014
as one
able 2),
that the
erves to
still in
, which
firms.
y
y
nior
al
as
ow
d 2) how
ssional
d
in which
d
TABLE 6THREE L Practice
Gaining aretaininglegitimacthrough msuccess Enablingautonomretaining
Interactinpoliticallyappearinapolitical
6 LEADERSHI
e M
and
cy to lead market
I
g my whilst
control
O
ng y whilst ng l
C
IP PRACTIC
Manifestatio
mplicit
Overt
Covert
Ca
CES IN PROF
on ImpliPowe PartnindividIndividiffere
Partnautonwill ulcomm Build opponactingpartne
ass Centre for P
38
FESSIONAL
cations: er Dynamics
er peers ackdual’s superidual establisence relative
ers accept conomy if they pltimately ens
mercial succe
coalitions annents, whilst g in best inteership.
Professional Ser
SERVICE F
s
knowledge ior abilities. shes status e to peers.
onstraints onperceive theyure
ess.
nd marginalizbeing seen arests of
rvice Firms – Wo
IRMS
ImplicaContex
IncreasSecureincome
n y
InterprepartnerDeliver
ze as
Succescontrovinitiativethis is in
orking Paper 01
ations: Orgaxt
se profits of fi employmen
e for colleagu
et and implemrs’ objectiveson election m
ssfully implemversial changes. Persuaden their best in
12 ‐ 2014
anizational
irm. t and
ues.
ment for firm. mandate.
ment ge e partners nterests.
Practice
implicit
capabil
accept
willingly
role of “
leaders
effect a
the orga
increas
busines
way thin
success
firm, it i
formally
formal a
This is
necess
the fee
Pr
as lead
peers. A
be main
over the
e 1, gaining
manifestat
ity. Market
him or her
y concede
“follower”.
ship role, it
a proxy for
anizational
ed profits f
ss operates
ngs work a
s is an imp
s particula
y elected ra
authority g
especially
itates a red
income ge
ractice 2, e
ers need to
As this stud
ntained bet
e partnersh
g and sust
tion of the
t success, o
r as worthy
their much
Whilst see
is not in its
leadership
l context as
for the part
s and the n
and therefo
portant prec
arly necess
ather than
ain the leg
true when
duction in t
enerated by
enabling au
o downplay
dy demons
tween ena
hip. Howev
Ca
taining legit
ability to le
our study s
to lead the
h-valued au
en within th
self eviden
p capability
s the indivi
tnership. A
nuances of
ore is less t
condition fo
ary for the
appointed
itimacy the
a person e
their fee ea
y their colle
utonomy w
y the exten
strates, par
bling their
ver, partne
ass Centre for P
39
timacy to le
ead rather t
shows, is a
em; a nece
utonomy to
ese firms a
ce that the
as it is und
idual role m
A person wh
f profession
threatening
or any lead
most senio
. Only in th
ey need to
enters a se
arning work
eagues.
whilst mainta
nt of contro
rtners reco
autonomy
rs will only
Professional Ser
ead throug
than direct
a requireme
essary cond
o a peer an
as a neces
e individual
derstood a
models beh
ho has und
nal work is
g to individ
dership role
or leadersh
his way can
exercise in
enior leade
k because
aining cont
ol they atte
ognize that
as a partn
co-operate
rvice Firms – Wo
gh market s
t evidence
ent if a par
dition for c
nd to cast th
ssary qualif
is qualified
as having a
haviors like
derstood th
less likely
ual autono
e in a profe
hip roles, w
n individua
nfluence ov
ership posit
they will re
trol, is ove
mpt to exe
a delicate
ner and ma
e with over
orking Paper 01
success, is
of leadersh
rtner’s peer
colleagues
hemselves
fication for
d to lead. I
a positive im
ely to lead t
he way the
y to interfer
omy. While
essional se
which are ty
ls with limit
ver their pe
tion which
eceive a sh
rt. It is also
ercise over
balance n
intaining c
rt attempts
12 ‐ 2014
s an
hip
rs are to
to
s in the
such a
t is in
mpact on
to
e in the
market
ervice
ypically
ted
eers.
hare of
o subtle,
their
eeds to
ontrol
s to
control
and are
the con
have a
the firm
they are
underst
partner
partner
enable
Pr
accepte
(accord
this stu
behavio
long as
rather t
success
organiz
manage
becaus
authorit
who do
deployi
behavior if
e not burea
ntingent nat
mandate f
m. This is w
e able to s
tood constr
s to some
autonomy
autonomy
ractice 3, in
ed by their
ding to notio
dy emphas
or. Such be
these indi
han to adv
sfully to im
zational con
erial autho
e they trus
ty over the
oes not app
ng highly s
f they perc
aucratic intr
ture of man
from their p
what enable
hape the o
raints. So t
extent but
y. Leaders
whilst mai
nteracting p
peers as le
ons of polit
sizes that t
ehavior is j
viduals are
vance their
mplement co
ntext. With
rity, peers
st certain in
mselves. Y
pear to hav
sophisticate
Ca
eive that th
rusions or
nagerial au
partners to
es them to
organization
traditional
have to be
are therefo
ntaining co
politically w
eaders, pro
tical behav
these indiv
ustified, by
e seen as a
own intere
ontroversia
in a contex
are willing
ndividuals s
Yet an indiv
ve to work p
ed political
ass Centre for P
40
hese will ul
excessive
uthority in s
interpret a
engage in
nal context
manageme
e applied s
ore require
ontrol.
whilst appe
ofessionals
vior as defi
iduals are
y the individ
acting in th
ests. In so
al change i
xt of extens
to cast the
sufficiently
vidual oper
politically to
skills, to e
Professional Ser
ltimately en
“managem
such organ
and implem
overt leade
t within cer
ent controls
electively t
d to be ext
earing apol
s must app
ned by the
in fact eng
dual leade
he best inte
doing, suc
nitiatives, a
sive individ
emselves i
to allow th
rating in a
o keep the
enable them
rvice Firms – Wo
nsure com
ment.”. This
nizations. L
ment partne
ership prac
rtain implic
s are perm
to maintain
tremely sub
litical, is co
pear to be a
e partners w
gaging in hi
rs and thei
erests of th
ch individua
and thus s
dual autono
n the role o
hem a degr
highly polit
ir position
m to interac
orking Paper 01
mercial su
s is the ess
Leaders in
ers’ objectiv
ctices. In s
citly and ex
mitted by th
n the perce
btle in how
overt. In ord
apolitical
within the f
ighly politic
ir “followers
e partners
als are able
hape the
omy and co
of followers
ree of form
ticized env
may in fac
ct politically
12 ‐ 2014
ccess
sence of
effect
ves for
o doing,
plicitly
e
eption of
w they
der to be
firm). Yet
cal
s,” as
hip
e
ontingent
s
mal
vironment
ct be
y whilst
appeari
service
Th
literatur
Svening
precario
context
interact
previou
within o
both co
Th
leader/f
interact
examin
profess
betwee
practice
demons
individu
leaders
curricul
they are
to lead
ing apolitic
firms.
he findings
re on leade
gsson, 200
ous and su
t, the focus
tion in parti
usly neglec
organizatio
ontext-crea
he growing
follower rel
tion. The cu
e in detail
sional servi
n leader an
es. Practice
strable abil
uals establi
ship) by eng
um. Practi
e seen to in
is, apparen
cal. This is
s from the c
ership prac
03; Crevan
ubject to ne
s in these s
icular situa
ted themes
ns affect le
ting and co
g literature
lationships
urrent stud
the impact
ce firm, au
nd follower
e 1 highligh
lity to enga
ish status d
gaging in p
ce 2 highlig
nterfere wi
ntly, more
Ca
the covert
current stud
ctices. As n
i et al, 200
egotiation.
studies is o
ations. Inste
s within thi
eadership p
ontext-depe
on plural m
s can be co
dy has take
t of ambigu
uthority is e
r but throug
hts how the
age effectiv
difference
practices th
ghts how e
th the indiv
important t
ass Centre for P
41
nature of l
dy are ther
noted by se
07; Ladkin,
However,
often on “m
ead the cu
s literature
practices, a
endent.
models of le
ontingent, c
en one part
uous powe
established
gh a comb
e legitimac
vely in spec
relative to
hat are not
explicit man
vidual auto
than direct
Professional Ser
eadership
refore cons
everal auth
2010), lea
while ackn
icro” aspec
rrent study
e: 1) how a
and 2) how
eadership
constructed
ticular extre
r dynamics
d not in any
ination of o
cy to lead is
cific “leade
their peers
part of a tr
nagement
onomy of pa
tly influenc
rvice Firms – Wo
practice in
sistent with
hors (e.g. A
der and fo
nowledging
cts such as
y focuses a
mbiguous
w leadershi
acknowled
d and nego
eme organ
s on leader
y formalized
overt, indire
s not gaine
er” activities
s (enabling
raditional le
activities a
artners. Re
ing one’s p
orking Paper 01
n professio
h the estab
Alvesson &
llower iden
g the import
s talk and
attention on
power dyn
p practices
dges that
otiated thro
nizational c
rship practi
d relations
ect and cov
ed through
s. On the c
them to ex
eadership
are minimiz
etaining leg
peers, and
12 ‐ 2014
nal
lished
ntities are
tance of
n two
namics
s are
ough
context to
ices. In a
hip
vert
contrary,
xercise
zed as
gitimacy
attempts
to do th
political
ultimate
denigra
within th
environ
position
continu
the bes
“happy
is desig
least th
leaders
dynami
power d
power d
Th
can be
market
this way
context
whilst m
created
kept wit
he latter ca
l. But partn
ely ensure
ated whilst
he complex
nment, indiv
n while in fa
ously build
st interests
band of br
gned to ens
at damagin
ship is prac
cs of the fi
dynamics,
dynamics w
he current
both conte
success, i
y it can be
t-changing
maintaining
d and how t
thin bound
n too easil
ners will ac
commercia
political sk
x and amb
viduals sho
act deployi
d coalitions
of the part
rothers” as
sure that h
ng splits w
cticed throu
rm. This a
as they rem
within the f
study has
ext-creating
s a means
see as bo
(enabling
g control, s
the impact
aries that a
Ca
y be seen
ccept const
al success
kill is privile
biguous pow
ould not ap
ing highly s
s and marg
tnership. T
one interv
armony is
ithin the pa
ugh knowle
lso reprodu
main cover
firm can be
also emph
g and conte
s of preserv
th context-
the firm to
hows how
of subtle l
are accept
ass Centre for P
42
as endorsi
traints on th
. Practice 3
eged within
wer dynam
ppear to ha
sophisticat
ginalize opp
hus, an im
viewee put
ultimately
artnership a
edge of and
uces and in
rt, so that t
e preserved
hasized the
ext-depend
ving the firm
-sustaining
grow). The
the impres
eadership
table to the
Professional Ser
ing “manag
heir autono
3 highlights
these firm
mics of thes
ave to work
ted politica
ponents, w
agery of a
it, is maint
preserved
are avoide
d subtle ma
ndeed reem
the belief in
d.
e extent to w
dent. Pract
m by impro
(ensuring
e second p
ssion that le
practices o
e partnersh
rvice Firms – Wo
gement” or
omy if they
s how polit
ms. In order
se highly po
k politically
l skills. The
whilst being
homogene
tained. Pol
within the
ed. At the s
aneuvering
mphasizes
n the apolit
which lead
tice 1, gain
oving financ
the longev
practice, en
eadership
on organiz
hip. Practice
orking Paper 01
r even bein
y perceive i
tical behav
r to rise to t
oliticized
to keep th
ey must
seen as a
eous partn
itical mane
partnershi
ame time,
g within the
the ambig
tical nature
dership pra
ning and su
cial perform
vity of the f
nabling aut
“sort of ha
ational con
e 2, an ove
12 ‐ 2014
ng
it will
vior is
the top
eir
acting in
ership, a
euvering
p or at
e power
guous
e of
ctices
ustaining
mance. In
firm) and
tonomy
ppens” is
ntext is
ert
practice
even th
directio
leaders
partner
fact, as
importa
In
overt le
position
lead, on
perform
be eage
being w
partner
suppos
As
leaders
address
practice
operate
and cov
resourc
within th
e, is about
hese more
on – throug
ship Practic
s to follow
illustrated
ant when di
these prof
eadership a
ns by their
ne must ap
ming well as
er for leade
willing to mo
ship. Our s
edly reluct
s Denis et
ship practic
s this issue
es. This stu
e outside d
vert leader
ces availab
heir firms.
carrying ou
overt aspe
h affecting
ce, on the o
them to pl
in this stu
isplaying re
fessional s
activities ar
peers with
ppear reluc
s a profess
ership roles
ove away f
study sugg
tant leaders
al. (2012: 2
ces, interac
e by highlig
udy raises
irect relatio
ship practi
ble for influe
This is not
Ca
ut an explic
ects of lead
the framin
other hand
aces they
dy, a degre
eluctant lea
service firm
re margina
out necess
ctant to take
sional rathe
s are susp
from full-tim
ests, there
s and popu
267) noted
ctions, and
ghting a co
important
ons betwee
ce represe
encing the
t of course
ass Centre for P
43
citly agreed
dership are
ng the orga
, enables i
had not ne
ee of subte
adership to
ms, therefor
lized, and
sary demo
e on the ro
er than as a
ect as bein
me fee ear
efore, that p
ulated by a
d: “We still
outcomes
mbination
issues abo
en leaders
ent importa
power dyn
exclusive
Professional Ser
d mandate
about nud
anizational
individual le
ecessarily p
erfuge abo
o autonomo
re, leadersh
people are
nstrating le
ole and one
an aspiring
ng self-serv
ning work,
professiona
autonomou
know little
.” The curr
of implicit,
out how lea
and follow
ant aspects
namics and
to professi
rvice Firms – Wo
e from the p
dging partn
context. T
eaders to p
previously
ut how act
ous followe
hip politics
e raised up
eadership a
e must crea
g leader. In
ving power
which is th
al service f
s followers
about how
rent study h
overt, and
adership pr
wers. As illu
s of the lead
d organizat
onal servic
orking Paper 01
partnership
ners in a pa
he covert
persuade t
agreed to
ivities are f
ers.
s are demo
to leaders
ability. In o
ate legitima
ndividuals s
r-seekers a
he lifeblood
firms are le
s.
w power aff
has sought
d covert lea
ractices ma
ustrated, im
ders’ reper
tional conte
ce firms (th
12 ‐ 2014
p but
articular
their
go. In
framed is
nized,
ship
order to
acy by
seen to
and for
d of the
ed by
fects
t to
adership
ay
mplicit
rtoire of
exts
he
practice
academ
importa
importa
becomi
benefit
practice
meanin
interpla
method
es identifie
mia, for exa
ant for lead
ant avenue
ng too myo
from a bro
es that are
ng manage
ay of explic
dological im
d in the cu
ample). Ra
ership gen
s for resea
opic in its v
oader unde
not easily
ment and m
it, implicit,
mplications
Ca
rrent study
ther, we pr
nerally. Wh
arch, it runs
view of pra
erstanding o
observable
manipulatio
and covert
for future
ass Centre for P
44
y may be fa
ropose, tha
hile leaders
s, as pointe
actices. Mic
of the impo
e since the
on by leade
t leadershi
research.
Professional Ser
amiliar to th
at indirect a
ship practic
ed out by D
cro-oriented
ortance of i
ey may invo
ers. As a r
p practices
rvice Firms – Wo
hose worki
and covert
ce theory h
Denis et al.
d studies o
implicit and
olve long-t
esult, this e
s has poten
orking Paper 01
ing within
practices a
as opened
(2012), th
of leadersh
d covert lea
erm and su
emphasis o
ntially sign
12 ‐ 2014
are
d up
he risk of
ip will
adership
ubtle
on the
ificant
REFER
Agar, M
Alvehus
Alvesso
Alvesso
Alvesso
Ammet
Avolio,
Baden-
Barker,
Bass, B
Bass, B
Bourdie Bryman
Carroll,
RENCES
M. 2010. OnOrganiz
s, J. (Forthservice f
on, M. & SvUgly AmOrganiza
on, M. & Svextraodi
on, M., & S“leaders
er, A. P., DToward 796.
B. J., Waluresearch
-Fuller, C. &professioJournal
R. A. 1997Human
B. M. 1985.The Free
B. M. 1990.the visio
eu, P. 1990
n, A. 1996. (Eds.), H
B., & LevyIs Not. O
n the Ethnozational Re
hcoming) Cfirms. Unde
veningssonmbiguity: Coation. Orga
veningssonnarization
Sveningssohip.” The L
Douglas, Ca political t
umbwa, F. h, and futur
& Bateson,onal servicl of Servic
7. How canRelations
. Leadershe Press.
. From tranon. Organiz
0. The Log
LeadershiHandbook
y, L. 2008. Organizatio
Ca
ographic Pesearch M
Clients and er review fo
n, S. 2003aontradictionanization S
n, S. 2003bof the mun
on, S. 2003Leadership
., Gardnertheory of le
O. & Webre direction
, J. 1990. Pce firms: is e Industry
n we train ls 50: 343–3
hip and pe
nsactional tzational dy
gic of Prac
ip in organk of organiz
Defaultingon 15(1): 7
ass Centre for P
45
Part of the MMethods 13
cases: Onor Scandin
a. Good Vins of (Non-Studies 2
b. Managendane. Hum
3c. The grep Quarterl
, W. L., Hoeadership.
er, T. J. 20ns. Annual
Promotion “up or out”
y Managem
leaders if w362.
erformance
to transformynamics 1
ctice. Cam
izations. Inization stu
g to Manag75–96.
Professional Ser
Mix: A Mult3(2): 286–3
the divisionavian Jou
sions, Bad-)Leadersh24: 961–98
rs doing leman Relat
eat disappely 14: 359–
ochwarter, WThe Lead
009. Leadel Review o
strategies ” always thment 1: 62–
we do not k
e beyond
mational le18(3), 19–3
bridge: Po
n S. R. Clegudies: 276-
ement: Lea
rvice Firms – Wo
ti-Genre Ta303.
on of labor urnal of M
d Micro-mahip in a Kno88.
eadership: Ttions 56: 1
earing act: –381.
W. A., & Federship Qu
ership: Currof Psychol
for hierarche best? In–78.
know what
expectatio
eadership: 31.
lity Press.
gg, C. Hard-292. Lond
adership D
orking Paper 01
ale of the F
in professiManagemen
nagementowledge-In
The 435–59.
difficulties
erris, G. Ruarterly 13
rent theorielogy 60: 42
chically orgternationa
leadership
ons. New Y
Learning to
dy, & W. Ron: Sage.
Defined By
12 ‐ 2014
Field.
ional nt.
and ntensive
in doing
. 2002. : 751–
es, 21–449.
anised al
p is?
York:
o share
R. Nord
What It
Carroll,
de Cert
Chia, R
Chia, R
Cunliffe
Czarnia
Denis, J
Denis, J
Denis, J
Empson
Emspso
Empson
Graen,
Gronn,
Hosking
B., Levy, Compete
teau, M. 19Californi
R. 2004. StrManage
R. & Holt, ROrganiz
e, A. L., & E1449.
awska, B. 1Chicago
J.-L., Langambiguit
J.-L., LangWorld of
J.-L., LangManage
n, L. 2001.knowledrelation
on, L. & Chalternativthe Soc
n, L. 2007.perspec
G. B. & UhDevelopmulti-do
P. 2002. D423-52.
g, D. M. 19Manage
L., & Richmency Parad
984. The Pa Press.
rategy-as-pement Rev
R. 2006. Strzation Stud
Eriksen, M
1997. Narro: The Univ
gley, A., & Cty. Organiz
gley, A., & Rf Organizat
gley, A. & Sement Ann
. Fear of exdge transfes 54: 839-6
hapman, Cve forms o
ciology of O
. Managingctives. Oxf
hl-Bien, M.pment of LMmain persp
Distributed
988. Organement Stud
Ca
mond, D. 2digm. Lead
Practices o
practice: Rview 1: 29–
rategy as pdies 27: 63
. 2011. Re
rating the versity of C
Cazale, L. zation Stu
Rouleau, Ltions. Lead
Sergi, V. 20nals 6:1: 21
xploitation r in merger62.
C. 2006. Paof governanOrganizat
g the modford: Oxford
1995. TheMX theory opective. Le
leadership
nizing, leaddies 25(2)
ass Centre for P
46
2008. Leadedership 4:
of Everyda
Reflections –34.
practical co35–55.
lational lea
Organizathicago Pre
1996. Leadudies 17: 6
L. 2010. Thdership 6:
012. Leade11–283.
and fear ors between
artnership vnce in profetions 24: 1
dern law fird Universit
e Relationsof leadersh
eadership
p as a unit o
ership, and: 147–166.
Professional Ser
ership as P363–379.
ay Life. Be
on the rese
oping: A He
adership. H
tion. Dramess.
dership an673–699.
he Practice 67–88.
ership in the
f contaminn professio
versus corpessional se39-170
rm: New cty Press.
ship-basedhip over 25Quarterly
of analysis
d skilful pro
rvice Firms – Wo
Practice: C
rkeley: The
earch agen
eideggerian
Human Rel
mas of Insti
nd strategic
of Leaders
e plural. Th
nation: impeonal service
poration; Imervices firm
challenges
approach 5 years: Ap6: 219–24
s. Leaders
ocess. Jou
orking Paper 01
Challenging
e Universit
nda. Europ
n perspect
lations 64
itutional Id
c change u
ship in the
he Academ
ediments toe firms. Hu
mplicationsms. Resear
s, new
to leaderspplying a m47.
hip Quarte
urnal of
12 ‐ 2014
g the
ty of
pean
tive.
: 1425–
dentity.
nder
Messy
my of
o uman
s of rch in
hip: multi-level,
erly 13:
Kipnis,
Kvale, S
Ladkin,
Larsson
Løwend
Maister
Marion,
Marion,
Mills, C
Mintzbe
Norden
Pearce
Pfeffer,
Pierce,
D., SchmidExplorat452.
S. & BrinkmResearc
D. 2010. RCheltenh
n, M., & LuMicro-dis159–184
dahl, B. 20Copenha
r, D. H. 199Press.
, R., & Uhl-Quarter
, R. & Uhl-leadersh
C. W. 1940.Review
erg, H. 199Busines
nflycht, Vontaxonom35: 155–
, C. & Conleadersh
J. 2013. YAcross C
C. S. 1906Harvard
dt, S. M. & tions in get
mann, S. 2ch Intervie
Rethinkingham: Edwa
undholm, Sscursive A4.
005. Strateagen: Cop
93. Manag
-Bien, M. 2rly 12: 389–
Bien, M. 20hip. Emerg
. Situated a5: 904-913
98. Covert ss Review
n, A. 2010. my of knowl–174.
ger, J. 200hip. Thous
You’re Still Contexts. T
6. CollecteUniversity
Ca
Wilkingsotting one’s
2009. Interewing. Tho
g leadershard Elgar.
S. E. 2010. Analysis of a
egic Managenhagen B
ging the Pr
2002. Lead–418.
003. Compgence 5(1)
actions and3.
leadershipw Novembe
What is a ledge-inten
03. Sharedsand Oaks
the Same:The Acade
ed Papers y Press.
ass Centre for P
47
n, I. 1980.way. Jour
Views. Leaousand Oa
hip. A new
Leadershipan Everyda
gement of Business S
rofessiona
ership in c
plexity theo: 54–76.
d vocabula
: Notes onr–Decemb
professionnsive firms
d leadersh, CA: Sage
: Why Theoemy of Ma
of Charle
Professional Ser
Intraorganrnal of App
arning theks: Sage.
w look at ol
p as Work-ay Interact
f Professiochool Pres
al Service
complex org
ory and Al-Q
aries of mot
managingber: 140–14
nal service . Academy
ip: reframe.
ories of Ponagement
es Sanders
rvice Firms – Wo
nizational inplied Psyc
e Craft of Q
ld leaders
-embeddedion in a Ba
onal Servicss.
Firm. New
ganizations
Qaeda: Ex
tive. Amer
g profession47.
firm? Toway of Manag
ming the ho
ower Hold Ot Perspect
s Peirce. C
orking Paper 01
nfluence tachology 65
Qualitative
ship questi
d Influenceank. Leade
ce Firms (
w York: The
s. The Lea
xamining co
rican Socio
nals. Harv
ard a theorgement Re
ows and w
Over Time tives 27: 2
Cambridge,
12 ‐ 2014
actics: 5: 440–
e
tions.
e: A ership 6:
3rd ed.)
e Free
adership
omplex
ological
vard
ry and eview
whys of
and 69–280.
, MA:
Plowma
Raelin,
Schatzk
Spillane Svening
Svening
Tengbla Wallace
Weick,
Yukl, G
an, D. A., SThe roleQuarter
J. 2011. F211.
ki, T., KnorContem
e, J. P. 200
gsson, S., processeOxford:
gsson, S. &2: 203–2
ad, S. (Ed.
e, M., & ToService
K. E. 1989Manage
G. 1989. MaManage
Solansky, Se of leadersrly 18: 341–
From leade
rr-Cetina, Kmporary Th
05. Distribu
Alvehus, Jes and inteOxford Un
& Larsson,224.
). 2012. Th
omlinson, MLeaders E
9. Theory Cement Rev
anagerial Lement 15: 2
Ca
S., Beck, Tship in eme–356.
rship-as-pr
K. & von Saheory. Lond
uted leader
J. & Alvesseractions. Iiversity Pre
M. 2006. F
he work of
M. 2010. Condeavour t
Constructioview 14: 51
Leadership251–289.
ass Centre for P
48
T. E., Bakerergent, self
ractice to le
avigny, E. don: Routl
rship. The
on, M. 201n S. Tengbess.
Fantasies o
f manager
ontextualizto Build Inf
on as Discip16–531.
: A Review
Professional Ser
r, L., Kulkaf-organizat
eaderful pr
2001. Theedge.
Education
2. Manageblad (ed.) T
of leadersh
rs. Oxford:
zing Leadefluence. Le
plined Imag
w of Theory
rvice Firms – Wo
arni, M., & Tion. The L
ractice. Lea
e Practice
nal Forum
erial leaderThe work o
hip: Identity
Oxford Un
r Dynamicseadership
gination. A
y and Rese
orking Paper 01
Travis, D. Veadership
adership 7
Turn in
69: 143-1
rship: Identof manage
y work. Lea
niversity Pr
s: How Pu6: 21–45.
Academy o
earch. Jour
12 ‐ 2014
V. 2007. p
7: 195–
50.
tities, ers.
adership
ress.
blic
of
rnal of
Firm
Firm A
Firm B
Firm C
Firm D
TOTAL
Practice
Gaining aretaininglegitimacthrough msuccess Enablingautonomretaining
Interactinpoliticallyappearinapolitical
Descr
Law fir
Consugloball Accouemploy Auditinemploy
THREE
e M
and
cy to lead market
I
g my whilst
control
O
ng y whilst ng l
C
ription
rm, 5,000 em
ultancy firm, 1ly
nting firm, glyees in the U
ng firm, globayees in Swed
E LEADERS
Manifestatio
mplicit
Overt
Covert
Ca
TASTUD
mployees glob
1,500 employ
obal firm withUK
al firm with 2den
SHIP PRACT
on ImplicPowe PartneindividIndividdiffere
Partneautonowill ultcomm Build copponactingpartne
ass Centre for P
49
ABLE 1 DY DATA
bally
yees
h 11,000
,000
TABLE 6
TICES IN PRO
cations: r Dynamics
er peers ackndual’s superiodual establishence relative
ers accept coomy if they ptimately ensu
mercial succes
coalitions andnents, whilst b in best inter
ership.
Professional Ser
Number ofInterviews
34
31
37
42
144
OFESSIONA
nowledge or abilities. hes status to peers.
onstraints on perceive theyure ss.
d marginalizebeing seen arests of
rvice Firms – Wo
f SupData
Obsedocu Docu
Obsedocu Obsedocu
AL SERVICE
ImplicaContext
IncreaseSecure income
InterprepartnersDeliver o
e as
Successcontroveinitiativethis is in
orking Paper 01
porting a
ervations, uments
uments
ervations, uments
ervations, uments
E FIRMS
tions: Organt
e profits of firemployment for colleague
t and implems’ objectives fon election m
sfully implemersial changees. Persuaden their best in
12 ‐ 2014
nizational
rm. and
es.
ment for firm.
mandate.
ment e e partners nterests.
Fir
m A
InteyouPaIntepowPa
Fir
m B
ThExposcomsupaboinscontha
Fir
m C
Soabopeoto f
Fir
m D
Thanyengdesstaproconbecis nthissol
ORGA
Extensiv
erviewer: Dou?
artner: Not aserviewer: Dower over you
artner: I don’t
e CEO and Cxecutive Comsitions are remmunicatingpervising. It’sout guiding o
side the organtrolling, not at kind of thin
o it’s not abouout (leaders)ople outlets…follow anyon
is company iyone else whgineers or ansigning the jo
arts at the othoblem that nensultant findicomes the mnot mine or as person whalving the prob
ANIZATIONA
ve Individua
oes anyone h
s far as I’m cooes anyone thu? think so. (A8
Chairman, Bommittee etc. …eally coordinag - I don’t thins more aboutor making surnization, but managing, n
ng. (B29)
ut following in) enabling an…. Because fe. (C9)
is not based hat to, as if thny other limitobs. … The cher end, with eeds to be song out about
manager for thanyone else’sat to do, or hblem. (D25)
Ca
TAL CONTEX
al Autonomy
have power o
oncerned nohink they hav
8)
oard of Direc… a lot of thoating or nk we need t coordinationre that cohesdefinitely no
not policing -
n that sense,nd directing, gfrankly nobod
on anyone tehere were soed set of peoconsulting bua client who
olved. And tht this problemhat job. And s business toow to go abo
ass Centre for P
50
TABLE 2
XT: PROFESS
y
over
. ve
ThPaacpebykewidme
ctors, se
n and sion is t no not
I thlealeaasof I syohacliebe
it’s giving dy has
Myabthiextimprocopesto
elling ome ople usiness o has a he m then it
o tell out
It’sThanoth
Professional Ser
SIONAL SER
Contingen
he interestingartner) is thatchieve anythineople… You cy essentially wy influencersder group, soeaning I think
hink we recogadership posadership rolek you to do …where we neay – I’m youu don’t want
appy just to bents because
est. (B8)
y experiencebout an hour nk of it as a
xperience is tme, get a liceofessional seme from you
eople get killeop following t
s not clear whhere is this amnd some partnhers, but this
rvice Firms – Wo
RVICE FIRM
nt Manageri
g thing in this t you find thang except thrcan only makworking with s) who in turno power has k to other org
gnize that anition in the fir
e. It’s someth… So I’m hapeed to go fromr servant leame in this roe a partner ae that’s what
of authority if you stop relicense to leahat you can, nse to lead f
ervices but it ur peer grouped very quickthem. (C1)
hat it looks likmbiguous cirners are mor
s is anything
orking Paper 01
MS
al Authority
role (of Senat you can’t rough other ke things hapthis group (o
n influence tha different
ganizations. (
nyone in a rm is in a sering the partnppy to get a vm (the partneder and frank
ole I’m more tand focus on we all love t
is that it lastsefreshing it. I ad. My for a very limrom above inactually has
p. We’ve seenkly if their tea
ke at the toprcle of partnere important tbut clear. (D2
12 ‐ 2014
y
ior
ppen of he
(A7)
rvant ners view ers). kly if than
to do
s
mited n to
n ms
. ers, than 28)
Fir
m A
Pathe Onpe I thbecclie
Fir
m B
LeaI nepa YoyouYoon Evaropeopra
Fir
m C
Toas or adv ThthrrelaTh I'vehaveasof goowo
Fir
m D
Thcommato … Ththe Whcon(D
GAINING
artners tend toey respect as
ne of the reasrceived to be
hink a lot of thcause those ent and so onadership in tecessarily harticularly resp
ou can't be a ur colleagues
ou have to haly propose b
veryone on thound the partople who areactice. (B2) be the persoChairman, ywhatever it isvancement. (
ey earn the rrough enhancationship thaey have the
e dealt with sving won thasiest one eithmajor client)od partner. Y
ork. (C18) e role of the mpany. Hereanagers in anbecome a suget you to do
ose who are ey are good t
hat is particunsultants. An12)
& RETAININ
o want to be s business ge
sons I think we a successfu
he leadershippeople have
n and in the ehis firm is a fave been thepected as a c
leader withos as a succe
ave a demonsut also dispo
he global ExCtnership, youe perceived w
on who actuayou've got thes, that's what(C7)
right to get incing the valuat we didn’t hrespect of th
some of our mat. I'm also sther. And, eve. ...So if I put
You know, on
manager is, e, I’d say, theny sense. Rauccessful cono fun things.
leaders in thtax lawyers. (
lar of the orgnd they contin
Ca
NG LEGITIM
led by partnenerators. (A
why people wul Banking pa
p in a firm is e the credibiliend all that wfunction of one best consultclient relation
ut having cressful client estrated track
ose. (B27)
Com has alreu would not ewithin the firm
ally runs somere because t people resp
nto one of thoe of the partnave before, oe partners be
most difficult ill currently then now I’ve bt my little egone of the top
in this busine leader playsather it is the nsultant. GooAnd earn a l
his organizati(D5)
ganization is tnue consultin
ass Centre for P
51
TABLE 3
MACY TO LEA
ers and in faA14)
were happy toartner… I ran
linked to youty, those peo
we do is ultimnes credibilitytant in our firnship person
edibility as a xecutor, I dorecord of ha
eady been anexpect an eyem as being ve
mething: eitheyou've been
pect first and
ose positionsnership becaor won a majecause they’
audits. So I'vhe partner onbecome heado hat on for apartners, I su
ess, less imps a bigger rolclearly shinin
od, successfulot of money.
ion are not th
that those whng on a full ti
Professional Ser
AD THROUG
ct they tend
o have me asn a lot of our
ur practice anople are in th
mately directey as a profesrm but I’m res – without tha
practitioner ion't think youraving delivere
n office leadeebrow to be rery strong pe
er runs a func outstandingforemost in
s through ... dause they’ve jor piece of w’re recognize
ve been the n (name of md of the audita moment I wuppose, and
portant than ile … That is,ng people whul tax consult. That’s what
hat because
ho become leme basis eve
rvice Firms – Wo
GH MARKET
to want to be
s Senior Partkey relations
nd the positioe market, the
ed towards clssional, in whspected as aat I cannot le
n this firm. Sr proposals ced, of being s
er. And they'reraised at theierformers in t
ction, runs a with clients. our firm. So
doing fantastieither develo
work and doned for doing th
partner on (nmajor client) a
practice; I'mwas sort of, yo
one that can
in for exampl people who
ho, in their watants who sht we ultimatel
they are goo
eaders are then though the
orking Paper 01
T SUCCESS
e led by partn
tner, becauseships and so
on in the marey actually knients. (A1)
hat we do – I a professionaead. (B11)
So if you're nocarry as muchsomebody wh
e people whor appointmenheir market o
service line, Whether it'sthat's the key
ic stuff with coped a client ne that consishat. (C14)
name of majoand that's not
m just going oou know, seen get out ther
le a manufacdon’t have to
ay of being, sow a way of ly want to do
od leaders bu
hose who areey are mana
12 ‐ 2014
ners who
e I was on. (A7)
rket now the
don’t think al and
ot seen by h weight. ho cannot
o generally nt - the or in their
or ends up s leadership y to
clients,
stently...
or client) t the
onto (name en to be a re and win
cturing o be show how being that
o.(D25)
ut because
e good gers.
Fir
m A
F
irm
B
Fir
m C
F
irm
D
You can’t recan say whahope peoplepeople you who are mothe businesscontrol the c [The Chairmmanagemenright. If I looto do some and it’s not w
One of the tabout the ormuch respowill allow it. have to go aimportant assure that weextent the caorganizationgot? (C6) Most of us kmove towardbusiness anevery partneothers care going to do may interferand so on, tbusiness. (D
ENABLING
Enabling Au
eally tell peopat you’re goine will agree wcan least tellst important s. Because tclient relation
man’s] classicnt in this firmk at my last tmanagemenworked. (B17
things that I hrganization isnsibility as yoBut they don
and take it. Aspect of leade mine to theapabilities ofn because wh
know what tods common g
nd agreeing oer works, thavery little abosomething s
re, but how ythat’s each aD6)
Ca
AUTONOMY
utonomy
ple what to dong to do and with it ... and what to do afor the succehey are the o
nships. (A17)
c line is ‘I don’… And I thinthree years,
nt stuff in [cou7)
have always s that you takou want. Andn’t offer it to yAnd I think an
ership is to m fullest possif the people ihat else have
o do anyway. goals for the on those. Butat’s somethingout. Sure, if ypecial, then oou work withnd everyone
ass Centre for P
52
TABLE 4
Y WHILST M
o. You then the are those ess of ones who )
Btocbhae
n’t want nk he’s I’ve tried untry]
Wpawgp
liked ke as d people you, you n make ble n the
e we
AaTdts
Things
t how g that you’re others
h clients ’s
Isintaincsninht
Professional Ser
MAINTAININ
Because we ao have a mocan’t just simbecause you hard earned cand balancesentrepreneur
We’re all leadpart of the stoand that’s whwe went througuess what, tpressure’s on
At the same tare peers, theThere do needecisions mahat sort of thstep in and sa
’d say part ofsome things bndividual shoasks. If they nstead of on charge for thasomething weno) administrn the sense thierarchies ohings. We do
rvice Firms – Wo
G CONTROL
Maintaining
are the size wre regulated ply go off anare deprivingcash. So thes and I think tialism. (A9)
ders…that’s tory and that’shat I expect thugh the globathere was non, they expec
time even thoere do need ed to be tougade on whereing. … knoway no, yes. (C
f the leadersbecome morouldn’t have tdid, they’d sclient work,
at time. It is be can chargerative or orgathat we put ar reporting ston't have tha
orking Paper 01
L
g Control
we are now, set of rules. d do what yog other peopre has to be that stops a b
the narratives exactly whahem to say. Bal financial c
o argument. Wct me to lead
ough all the pto be decisioh things don
e we’re goingwing when yoC14)
hip is to ensure efficient. Eto handle all pend their timand then we
better that thee for. … (But anizational leaa strong emptructures andt. (D35)
12 ‐ 2014
we have … You
ou want ple of their checks bit of
, that’s at I say But when risis, When the . (B33)
partners ons made. e or to invest, u have to
ure that ach routine
me on that cannot ey do we have adership hasis on
d such
If somebdiminishe This firm One of thyou becacorporate I mean ththe firm w[slams haneed to dterms of
The role they ema The prevwere domnumber oinfluencepromises You goveconstituti (One of tedgy andHe had wyou are gsaying) ‘wpulling th
You needmy view,political, Sometimis. He’s vsome of player in genuine It’s typicaright thin I think it’spersonalvery brigan analyt
IN
ody has a poed within the
is a structur
he things thaause they doe, because I'
his organizatwho will say fand on table]do along the what they th
involves us bail us or call u
vious electionminant charaof the more se…. It was alls being made
ern by your mional power t
the candidated challengingworked out thgoing to attrawe’ll knock dheir weight.’(C
d to be straig the best wayou lose a lo
mes my sensevery modest those things that way at aand clean. (A
al of the partng. And so the
s all about tru, this is the vht, very inteltical way, it’s
NTERACTINGPart 1:
olitical score firm. (B1)
re where crea
t is great abon't want to dom almost co
ion is no diffefrom quite an], ‘do you thinway?’… Andink people w
Part 2: Abeing seen aus we have t
n for Senior Pacters within tsenior partnel closed doore to various s
mandate andthat’s given t
es in the elecg of all the cahat in order toact the more jdown some oC3)
Part 3: Beght with peopy of playing i
ot of the trust
e would be (Sabout it, quitthat might b
all. … it’s simA19)
ners who've ey don't get i
ust… Peopleview, and tholectual, quiet
s quite a cold
Ca
G POLITICAProfessed ato settle and
ating enemie
out the firm iso something.mpletely apo
erent to mann early age tonk I’m in the d they’re rega
will want to heAdoption of
as acting as to call back a
Partner therethe organizat
ers including trs – smoke fisenior people
your persono you. (A7)
ction campaigandidates ando win enoughjunior partne
of the more se
lieving effecple even if yoit… If you’re t (A34).
Senior Partnee self-effacine under the h
mply because
been in the finvolved in po
e who just tellose people hatly spoken bu way but it’s
ass Centre for P
53
TABLE 5
LLY WHILSTabhorrence o that agenda
s or politickin
s that there's.... It's one ofolitical. (B23)
y others. Theo you, particuframe to be arded as quitear and what f political lanthe servants and we have
was a bit of tion and (perthe outgoinglled rooms –
e to get them
nal credibility
gn for Chairmd at times agh votes his beers you appeaenior partner
ctive leadersu tell them bseen as bein
er) doesn’t neng, and he hiheading of cre his own mo
firm for quite olitics. But th
l it straight, inave the higheut articulate, wnot personal
Professional Ser
T APPEARINof political b
a becomes tra
ng is wholly u
s no vindictivef the reasons
ere are peopularly over a Managing Pate pushy, willthey think pe
nguage and of the partneto help them
a power strurson) held sw Senior Partn lots of politic
m to support (
and authorit
man), his videggressive towest opportunal to their desrs who are ea
s to be “aboad things, if y
ng slippery, ju
ecessarily alwmself doesn’reeping as in
otivations in th
a long time, hey are aware
n a non-persoest respect, liwill just tell yl, he’s trusted
rvice Firms – Wo
NG APOLITIbehaviour ansparent, th
unproductive
e politics abos I could neve
ple who are cbeer or over artner or Senl be more poeople will wapractices
ers. We have, be seen to
uggle betweeway on the baner who had cking etc. etcperson). (C6
y not by virtu
eo and manifwards the incuity was the msire for improarning a load
ove politics”you’re straighust saying th
ways unders’t attach such
n slightly sinishis world are
that they're ae of stuff goin
onal way, it’sike (person),
you it straightd. (A12)
orking Paper 01
CAL
hat person is
. (B21)
out people wher survive in a
learly very amr a meal or ovnior Partner, wlitical in their
ant to vote for
our constitube helpful. (A
en two individasis of suppoquite a lot of
c. etc. – a var)
ue of some ki
festo were thumbent leade
more junior paoved profitabd of money bu
. ht with peoplings to be hig
stand how infh great imporster. He is noe so, I think, v
actually tryingng on. (C12)
s not vindictiv is a straight t, it’s not pers
12 ‐ 2014
ho upset a
mbitious in ver a chat what is it I
r views in r. (A2)
ents, when A34)
duals who ort from a f riety of
ind of
he most ership … artners. If ility (by ut not
le that’s, in ghly
fluential he rtance to ot himself a very
g to do the
ve, it’s not forward,
sonal, it’s