master thesis langangen korsen 2011

5/10/2018 Master Thesis Langangen Korsen 2011 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/master-thesis-langangen-korsen-2011 1/142

Linn Langangen: 0835194 Maja Øidne Korsen: 0776757

‘BI Norwegian Business School – Thesis’

- Competence Development in

Professional Service Firms -

A Cross-Cultural Study of Professionals in France and

Norway

Date of Submission:

01.09.2011

Supervisor:

Bente Løwendahl

Study Program:

Master of Science in International Marketing and Management

This thesis is a part of the MSc program at BI Norwegian Business School. The school takes no responsibility for the methods used, results found and conclusions drawn.



GRA 19402 – Master Thesis

Competence Development in Professional Service Firms

Content

CONTENT.........................................................................................................................................I

ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................................III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...........................................................................................................IV

1.0 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................1

1.1 I NTRODUCTION OF THE R ESEARCH TOPIC AND R ESEARCH QUESTIONS..................................................1

1.2 MOTIVATION FOR - AND VALUE OF THE R ESEARCH............................................................................2

1.3 K EY TERMS................................................................................................................................4

1.4 STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS............................................................................................................6

2.0 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND..........................................................................................7

2.1 NATIONAL CULTURE.....................................................................................................................7

2.2 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE FIRMS.....................................................................................................11

2.2.1 Characteristics...............................................................................................................11

2.2.2 Value Creation in PSFs.................................................................................................14

2.2.3 Management Consulting................................................................................................15

2.3 R ESOURCES WITHIN PSFS...........................................................................................................19

2.3.1 Resource-Based View of the Firm ................................................................................19

2.3.2 Tangible and Intangible Resources within PSFs...........................................................20

2.3.3 Competence ..................................................................................................................21

2.3.4 Knowledge Management and Methods of Knowledge Transfer....................................27

2.4 DEVELOPING AND USING COMPETENCE WITHIN PSFS......................................................................30

2.4.1 Contributors and Constraints to CD.............................................................................30

2.4.2 Evaluating CD...............................................................................................................32

2.4.3 Process for Utilization of Competence..........................................................................34

2.5 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................35

3.0 RESERCH METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................37

3.1 CHOICE OF DESIGN AND R ESEARCH METHOD.................................................................................37

3.1.1 Case Studies...................................................................................................................38

3.2. DATA COLLECTION AND CONTEXTS.............................................................................................40

3.2.1. Industry Details............................................................................................................40

3.2.2. Respondents..................................................................................................................40

3.2.3 Interviews and Written Material....................................................................................43

3.2.4 The Interview Process and Transcription.....................................................................44

3.2.5 Interview Concerns........................................................................................................46

3.3 DATA A NALYSIS........................................................................................................................48

3.4 R ESEARCH QUALITY...................................................................................................................49

Page i





3.5 PRESENTATION OF THE FINDINGS..................................................................................................53

3.6 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................54

4.0 FINDINGS, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

..........................................................................................................................................................55

4.1 CULTURE..................................................................................................................................55

4.1.1 National Culture ...........................................................................................................55

4.2 CD THROUGH I NVESTMENTS.......................................................................................................60

4.2.1 Mentor Programs and Support Systems........................................................................60

4.2.2 Courses and Training....................................................................................................65

4.2.3 Evaluations and Measurement......................................................................................72

4.2.4 Technical Tools..............................................................................................................76

4.3. CD THROUGH DAILY OPERATIONS..............................................................................................85

4.3.1 Learning by Doing.........................................................................................................85

4.3.2 Learning from Others....................................................................................................92

4.4 SUMMARY.................................................................................................................................98

5.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS AND MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS

........................................................................................................................................................101

5.1 CONCLUDING R EMARKS............................................................................................................101

5.2 MANAGERIAL IMPLICATIONS......................................................................................................102

5.2.1 Communication – the Crucial Glue.............................................................................102

5.2.2 Aligning Firm Goals with CD of Professionals...........................................................104

5.2.3 Supporting the Contributors and Reducing the Constraints of CD ...........................105

5.3 LIMITATIONS............................................................................................................................106

5.3.1 Choice of Literature and the Issue under Investigation..............................................107

5.3.2 Methodology................................................................................................................107

5.4 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER R ESEARCH ......................................................................................112

REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................114

APPENDICES ..............................................................................................................................131

APPENDIX 1: I NFORMATION LETTER SENT TO COMPANIES IN FRANCE......................................................131

APPENDIX 2: I NFORMATION LETTER SENT TO COMPANIES IN NORWAY....................................................132

APPENDIX 3: E NGLISH GENERAL I NTERVIEW GUIDE ...........................................................................133

APPENDIX 4: NORWEGIAN GENERAL I NTERVIEW GUIDE .....................................................................135

APPENDIX 5: PRELIMINARY THESIS R EPORT.......................................................................................137

Page ii





Abstract

Competence has received increased interest over the past decades as it is

identified as an important contributor to value creation in firms. Professional

service firms (PSFs) are in relations to this, deemed interesting to study, as they

serve as role models in the development of resources for value creation, and are

competing on competence as they are identified as highly knowledge-intensive.

This study set out to investigate how competence is developed in PSFs and the

main contributors and constraints to competence development (CD). Also our

cultural knowledge and experience with France created perceptions that

differences could occur in relation to how CD is influenced across borders.

Therefore we aimed to include a cross-cultural aspect in this study. Based on a

qualitative case study of professionals in France and Norway, altogether 37 cases,

the results are the following:

• We found that firms down-prioritized CD of their professionals. The focus

and understanding of its importance seemed to be present, however clients and

business development were often given higher priorities.

• Culture influences CD in the way that it affects especially the culture for

sharing and asking questions within- and across borders. Communication has been

identified through our findings as crucial “glue” for CD.

• CD through investments made by the firms and daily operations are two

important routes to development whereof the latter, namely CD through daily

operations, served as the most crucial route for all professionals in both countries.

• Differences across levels of newly employed, seniors and partners and

how they develop competences do exits, however far more similarities than

differences can be found, also across borders.

After studying CD and viewing it as an intangible resource within PSFs, we

question if PSFs can still be viewed as role models in terms of CD. Also, whether

CD is vital for the PSFs competitiveness can be questioned as these firms are

down-prioritizing this.

Page iii





Key words: culture, professional service firms, professionals, competence

development.

Acknowledgements

We offer our sincerest gratitude to our supervisor, Professor Bente Løwendahl,

who has supported us throughout our thesis with her patience, suggestions,

comments and knowledge, whilst allowing us the room to work in our own way.

Thank you for supporting us throughout this challenging process, and for sharing

your valuable information and knowledge, and providing us with fruitful insights,

discussions and constructive guidance. You are our Mentor!

We would also like to thank all of our respondents in the different PSFs both in

Paris and Oslo. Thank you all for taking the time in your busy schedules to

contribute to our sample, making this master thesis possible. We highly appreciate

the trust and openness that you have all shown us, resulting in many interesting

and fulfilling interviews, serving as fundamental information for our study.

Furthermore, we would like to thank Professor Siw Fosstenløkken. Through her

doctoral dissertation we found the motivation to continue her work on competence

and competence development, across borders.

Lastly, our sincerest gratitude also goes to the people close to us who have been

there all the way supporting us.

Oslo, September 1st, 2011

Linn Langangen Maja Øidne Korsen

Enquiries about this master thesis can be sent to [email protected] or [email protected]

Page iv

mailto:[email protected]











1.0 Introduction

1.1 Introduction of the Research Topic and Research Questions

The purpose of this study is to analyze how professionals develop competence

emphasizing on identifying the main contributors and constraints to competence

development (CD). The aim was to perform a cross-cultural analysis between

France and Norway to explore if there are any differences on how competence is

developed among the French and Norwegian professionals. We are in our study

solely focusing on the industry of management consulting. The overall research

question can thereby be presented as the following:

How does competence development take place in PSFs in Norway and France?

Culture will in this thesis have a predominant role for the analysis and

interpretation of the findings at later stages. Thereby we have introduced

Hofstede’s cultural dimensions (2001). The main differences between the two

countries that might be relevant are ‘individualism’, ‘power distance’,

‘uncertainty avoidance’, and ‘masculinity’. When referring to the professionals’

nationality we hereby discuss the French and Norwegian culture despite the

multinational working environment within PSFs. We will elaborate more on this

matter within the second chapter of this study. The thesis is focused on a

collection of international management consulting firms situated in the two

countries. The logic behind the locational choices is that both of us have studied

in France, hence we found it interesting to make the most out of this experience

by introducing an international perspective in our study.

We have paid attention to how CD takes place. Tsoukas (1996) stressed that it is

important to study how employees say that they develop competence, going

beyond what companies and partners state that they do in this matter. Itami (1987)

emphasizes the need to regard particular learning investments made by the firm as

well as CD in daily work. As stated by Nordhaug (1993), detecting what

contributes and constrains CD in PSFs will help these companies in understanding

what initiatives to further improve and develop, maintain, and nurture. We have

Page 1





chosen to investigate CD on three levels within our target companies; newly

employed, seniors, and partners. We found this interesting due to the fact that we

expected differences to occur between the different layers of professionals. Based

on previous studies on competence (e.g. Nordhaug, 1993; Løwendahl &

Nordhaug, 1994; Fosstenløkken, 2007) we were also aware of people developing

different types of competences at work, hence we found it appropriate to include a

classification of types of competences. Based on the abovementioned dimensions

we found it beneficial to amplify the overall research question through the

following sub questions:

(i) How does national culture of the professionals and the companies’ influencetheir development of competence?

(ii) What are the main contributors and constraints of the professionals’

competence development through investments made by the firms in competence

development processes?

(iii) What are the main contributors and constraints of the professionals’

competence development through daily operations?

1.2 Motivation for- and Value of the Research

It is now widely recognized that ‘services account for a very large part of

economic activity and that the service sector constantly increases its share of

GDP, employment, and international trade’ (Løwendahl, 2009:17). Services

account for 79% (2010) of the GDP in France, and 57.8% in Norway

(Nationmaster, 2010). More specifically, professional service firms (PSFs), which

this study will focus on, constitute a significant sector of the economy, despite

being measured by their size, numbers, or influence (Greenwood et al., 2005).

PSFs can be found within the broader category of knowledge-intensive firms

(KIFs) (Løwendahl, 2009), as KIFs overlap with, and include, the notion of

professional service organizations (Alvesson, 2001). These professional service

organizations offer services to clients within areas such as e.g. accounting,

advertising, architecture, communication consulting, engineering design, legal

Page 2





advice, and management consulting (e.g. Maister, 1993; Empson, 2000;

Løwendahl, 2009). It is claimed that KIFs will figure prominently in future

economies, and hereby it makes sense to study PSFs in order to learn more about

the nature of these firms and to understand how they handle themselves

successfully (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006). PSFs are becoming ever more

prominent in economies the world over (Delong & Nanda, 2003 cited in

Greenwood et al., 2005), and are among the world’s biggest and geographically

complex business enterprises (Greenwood et al., 2005).

PSFs typically lack the hard-nosed bottom line focus and hierarchical

management structure, and have been likened to ‘herding wild cats’ (Løwendahl,2009:69). The organizational structure, as described above, creates the challenges

considering management. Furthermore, it is crucial for management to know what

drives each of the professionals, what makes their work satisfying and how they

most effectively develop competence. With this thesis we seek to contribute with

insight on these matters. It might be difficult for managers to gain full and

unbiased information regarding their professionals. Therefore we hope that

through our conduction of interviews, and with us being more neutral to thecompanies, it can increase the chances of the respondents to answer honestly. Our

findings might shed light on issues that can increase insight and understanding

useful in relation to e.g. recruitment, training, investments in CD and future

retention.

Lorsch and Tierney (2002:24) state that ‘[T]he central difference - and

distinguishing characteristic - of the PSF business model is its reliance, its

absolute dependence, on skilled and motivated professionals’. These companies

assert knowledge as their foundation for value creation and competitive power

(e.g. Løwendahl, 2009; Stabell & Fjeldstad, 1998; Empson, 2000), and a growing

interest in knowledge as a competitive asset suggests the benefit of studying PSFs.

The critical task of their competitiveness and success is their ability to process

information and manage knowledge, making these organizations successful

examples. Moreover, we clearly view PSFs as valuable to study because they

contribute to a significant sector of the economy. Also, we regard it as essential to

Page 3





devote more research to the professionals within these firms, as believe that their

CD is a crucial building block for firms in general.

Previous literature have also emphasized the need for research regarding

competence and its development because of the highly competitive and

increasingly knowledge-based economy, which can be characterized by rapid

changes and frequent development of technological advances (Drucker, 1993).

Furthermore, to stay competitive for a long-term survival, CD is argued to be of

great value for PSFs (Løwendahl & Revang, 1998). A problem concerning

competence was revealed in Fosstenløkken’s (2007) PhD dissertation. Her results

suggested that the PSFs she investigated were far from particularly sophisticatedin prioritizing, organizing and developing measures for systematic development of

expertise (Innovations Report, 2007). CD was found to have a low priority in the

firms studied. The responsibility for their professional development was left to the

employees themselves. We found these findings surprising, as a large number of

researchers (e.g. Sveiby, 1997; Empson, 2000) have identified competence within

PSFs as vital to competitive ability and value creation. We were motivated by

these results to further investigate whether the same tendencies could be foundwithin management consulting firms. We also found it interesting to extend her

research by incorporating an international dimension and thereby also

investigating potential differences across borders. To our knowledge no research

has discussed and undertaken the same topic as a cross-cultural study between

France and Norway. By examining the professionals and their perceived CD, we

have strived to detect and address the possible differences and/or similarities

across levels, within the two geographical contexts.

1.3 Key Terms

In this section we want to introduce the key terms ‘national culture’, ‘professional

service firms’ (PSFs), ‘professionals’ and ‘competence’ in a general matter, as

these terms will be central throughout our thesis. The definitions and explanations

Page 4





of these key terms are chosen based on their appropriateness for the later

discussions in relation to our sub research questions.

National culture is by Kubr (1996:105) defined as ‘the values, beliefs, behavioural

norms, habits and traditions that characterize human society in a particular

country’. Despite the fact that one may find several distinct cultures within one

country, we have chosen to regard only one national culture in each country.

Culture has in this study been based on Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions,

and will be more closely introduces in chapter two.

Based on the definition by Løwendahl et al. (2001), PSFs are knowledge-intensivefirms employing professionals with a high degree of knowledge who work closely

with clients to deliver a service with a high degree of customization. This is

however only an extract and interpretation of the whole definition which can be

found in the literature review in this study.

The professionals within the service firms are here viewed as highly educated

people, and members of a highly professionalized occupational group. Theseindividuals enable PSFs ability to deliver unique and customized solutions

(Løwendahl, 2009), as referred to above. Since highly skilled workers belongs to

a category that may include the categories of knowledge workers and

professionals, and the three terms often is used interchangeably, we will refer to

the people working in a PSF as professionals. Further, we find this term

appropriate as the employees within PSFs refer to themselves as professionals,

have a professional orientation and emphasize the importance of professional

behavior.

Furthermore when we discuss CD of the professionals, we choose to base this on

the definition of work-related competence made by Nordhaug (1993:50): ‘the

composite of human knowledge, skills, and aptitudes that may serve productive

purposes in organizations’. The suitability and relevance of this definition, and the

discussions of these elements, will be thoroughly introduced in chapter 2.

Page 5





1.4 Structure of the Thesis

The thesis consists of five main chapters. Chapter 1, as seen, describes the

research topic, our main- and sub research questions, motivation for- and value of

the research, and key terms. Chapter 2 continues by presenting the theoretical

foundation for our study. This includes literature on national culture, PSFs,

resources within PSFs, and the aspect of developing and using competence.

Thereafter, chapter 3 addresses methodological considerations, with particular

emphasis on research design, data collection- and context, analysis, and research

quality. Chapter 4 contains a conflation of the findings, linked with analysis and

discussions. This chapter is based on cross-case comparisons of the three different

levels of professionals, in addition to the cross-border differences between France

and Norway. National culture, CD through investments and CD through daily,

operations will here be highlighted. The thesis is completed by chapter 5, which

presents concluding remarks containing managerial implications, limitations and

suggestions for further research.

Page 6





2.0 Theoretical background

This part of the report will focus on literature that we identify as relevant to the

research question presented. This chapter is comprised of four main parts, which

are organized under the headings ‘National Culture’, ‘Professional Service Firms’,

‘Resources within PSFs’, and ‘Developing and Using Competence within PSFs’.

The first section will present literature regarding issues of culture, and its potential

impacts on CD will be presented with focus on Hofstede (2001). Further, PSF

characteristics are presented, and we continue with what we consider as some of

the main resources of such a firm. Here, intangible resources will be central, and

competence will be predominant in the overview as it is determined as a critical

resource in PSFs. Further we will present a more in-depth overview of previous

literature on the topic of developing and utilizing competence.

2.1 National Culture

This section of the literature review will consider culture and its potential effects

on professionals CD. Since this is a cross-cultural study we see it necessary to

include cultural aspects, as we assumed that the nationalities of the headquarters

(HQ) of the firms and the professionals would most likely affect our findings.

National culture is by Kubr (1996:105) defined as ‘the values, beliefs, behavioural

norms, habits and traditions that characterize human society in a particular

country’.

We have considered the French and Norwegian culture, as this is where the

respondents were situated, and thereby these are the main cultures of comparison.

Additionally, since most of the companies’ HQs are based in the United States,

the U.S. culture will also be taken into consideration. When discussing culture we

are here referring to the collective level. To include culture we have chosen to use

Hofstede’s (2001) studies on national culture, based on his studies within IBM, as

he has developed by far the most influential national cultural work that is known

to be the most widely cited in existence (Steenkamp, 2001; Jones, 2007; Western

Page 7





Libraries, 2011). With such a groundbreaking body of work one cannot escape

criticism (Jones, 2007), and some of the most common criticisms are linked to the

one-company approach, national divisions and cultural homogeneity (Graves,

1986; Olie 1995; Søndergaard 1994; Nasif et al. 1991; Redpath 1997; DiMaggio

1997; McSweeney 2000 in Jones, 2007). Recent research has found that culture is

in fact fragmented across group and national lines. Despite the criticism, the

theory of Hofstede still remains significant.

Here all four of Hofstede´s primary dimensions (2001) would be of interest,

namely ‘individualism’ (IDV), ‘power distance’ (PDI), ‘uncertainty avoidance’

(UAI) and ‘masculinity’ (MAS). At a later point, he added a fifth dimension after

conducting an additional international study. This dimension was named ‘long-

term orientation’ (LTO) and was applied to 23 countries whereof one of them was

the U.S. Due to the fact that this dimension has not been applied to either France

or Norway, it will not be considered as we thereby lack a basis for comparison.

Figure 1 and 2: Norway and France- Cultural Dimensions (Sources: Hofstede, 2009)

Figure 3: United States - Cultural Dimensions (Source: Hofstede, 2009)

Page 8





Individualism, and in individualistic cultures, people are expected to take care and

look after oneself and their immediate family (Hofstede, 2009). In other words,

the ties between people in the society can be viewed as rather “loose”.

Individualism refers to the opposite of collectivism, which is to what degree

individuals are integrated into groups. In collectivistic societies people have built

strong ties within their group, e.g. their family and/or extended family. When

considering the cultures of interest in this study, they can all be regarded as being

more individualistic. Both France and Norway have an approximate score of

about 65 out of 100, and so the expected differences among the nationalities in

terms of individualism are likely to be few. The U.S on the other hand, scores 91

out of 100, making it a potentially more “extreme” case. Since most companies inour study are U.S. based, the differences may not be that few after all. There are a

limited number of countries in the world having individualism as their highest

score - the U.S. is, however, one of them. Within firms where individualistic

cultures may have left its traces, one may question the degree of collaboration or

willingness to collaborate in terms of e.g. sharing information upon request and

internal competition amongst professionals.

Power distance can be interpreted as human inequality such as prestige, wealth

and power (Hofstede, 2001). France and Norway weights status and consistency

among these areas rather differently. France scores almost three times as high as

Norway on power distance, with an approximate score of 63. This may have

important implications for later findings. Within organizations, power distance is

often related to hierarchical structures, however as PSFs have been identified as

having rather flat structures, this may not be as predominant compared to other

types of firms e.g. manufacturing firms (Løwendahl, 2009). Thereby it is of

interest to see whether there are differences between the structures of the firms in

the two countries, as this might have implications for the degree of openness and

culture for asking questions across levels within the firm. This is especially

because the U.S. and France are known for having greater hierarchical influences

in work situations (Hofstede, 2001). In other words, the “distances” between the

different levels are more distinct than it would be in Norway, where an egalitarian

situation would occur as according to Hofstede’s dimensions. Egalitarianism

Page 9





refers to situations containing more equality regarding power and its distribution

defined from below (Hofstede, 2001).

The third cultural dimension we view as important is uncertainty avoidance,

which can be explained as to what degree members of a certain culture feel

threatened by uncertain- or unknown situations (Hofstede, 2009). France scores

approximately twice as high as Norway and the U.S., at around 80 out of 100. In

work situations this may result in appreciation of rules, norms and directions, as to

avoid unstructured situations. For PSFs we feel that this might be rather

challenging as novel situations might arise in relation to novel client problems

within the rapid changing economy we have today. Furthermore, Fosstenløkken’s(2007) findings suggested that professionals were often left to themselves, which

in turn may create ambiguous situations. Moreover, without strict rules and

guidelines, there might also be different views regarding as to whether this may

constraint or contribute CD among individuals. We also assume that the wish of

avoiding unsure situations in the French culture might influence the professionals’

need for feedback and evaluations. This because they may have a higher need for

reassurance and appreciation that they are on “the right track”.

The last dimension of interest is masculinity, which versus its opposite

(femininity) is described as follows: ‘dualities of the sexes is a fundamental fact

with which different societies cope in different ways; the issue is what

implications the biological differences between the sexes should have for the

emotional and social roles of genders’ (Hofstede 2001:279). Related to work

goals, feminine cultures are more focused on social goals such as relationships,

helping others, quality of life and tenderness. On the contrary, masculine cultures

are recognized as being more egocentric and careers oriented, also rather focused

on the efficiency of the delivery as well as material success. Norway is known as

scoring extremely low on masculinity, with about eight out of 100. France, even

though not identified as a very masculine oriented culture, scores five times

higher than Norway, and the U.S. more than seven times as high. Within PSFs the

effects of masculinity or femininity may in turn influence the responses from the

professionals regarding CD. To the extreme, one might assume that CD is viewed

quite differently within the two cultures. In feminine cultures the ability to

Page 10





develop competence might be viewed positively in terms of career development,

hence by having a social goal and maybe improving their social situations in

terms of job satisfaction. On the other hand, we might presume that feminine

cultures may not give as high priority to CD, as they value more social goals and

thereby possibly family instead of careers. Also one may question the focus on

CD if feminine cultures prioritize team collaboration and team values, more than

each professional’s development. In less feminine cultures however, CD might be

viewed positively in terms of helping the professionals achieving their career

goals, becoming more competitive in the job market, and hence assist them in

generating larger revenues. At later stages in this study we will link Hofstede’s

cultural dimensions to our findings as it can contribute to explanations to the potential differences between the two countries.

2.2 Professional Service Firms

This section firstly defines PSFs according to the pragmatic definition proposed

by Løwendahl (2009) before turning to the characteristics of PSFs. Thereafter a

brief presentation of value creation in PSFs will be viewed before turning to a

presentation of the management consulting industry.

2.2.1 Characteristics

The professional services industry is one of the largest and most diverse in

modern economies. The industry includes more than one million firms on a global

basis, and is highly fragmented (International Data Corporation, 2010). The

industry consists of a broad aggregation of firms all serving the same private and

public sector client base, and also each other (Kubr, 1996). ‘The actual content of

the services delivered by the hired professionals may range from help in defining

the problem to be solved, to a complete process of problem definition, solution

development and implementation, result control and follow-up’ (Løwendahl,

2009:18).

Page 11





The significance of the professional service industry that sets it apart from other

industries will be introduced in the following section of the thesis. Organizations

can be categorized as knowledge-intensive where the majority of employees are

experts or professionals, and the most important input or stock is knowledge

(Starbuck, 1992). PSFs are highly depending on the knowledge of the

professionals, which in turn is embedded in intangible products or services and

necessary in order to be competitive (Løwendahl, 2009; Starbuck, 1992). PSFs

distinguish themselves from traditional firms in the way that their business model

is based on customizing intellectual property in collaborative relationships.

Advisory professionals do not perform services for clients, but they collaborate

with them, empowering and enabling them to solving their own problems:‘Professional services rely to a large extent on the interaction between

knowledgeable buyers and highly educated service providers who engage in some

form of joint problem solving activity’ (Løwendahl, 2009:18).

According to Lorsch and Tierney (2002:24), ‘firms that attract and retain the best

people and motivate them to build enduring client relationships, put the firm first,

and follow through on strategic imperatives are the firms that ultimately win’.Consulting firms’ business management energy is centered on elevating the

utilization of their consultants’ time, aiming to develop service offerings or skill

sets that clients will find compelling. Eventually, their basic goal is appropriately

charging and receiving payment from clients. In most professional services

segments, the client relationships and satisfaction determine repeat business and

referrals. Due to relatively low barriers to entry, the competition is intense in most

segments and consequently the service level expected from clients is high. Hence,

the PSFs aim to ensure customer satisfaction through deliverables of the highest

possible quality and meeting client expectations throughout the whole

engagement process (International Data Corporation, 2010).

PSFs are significant subjects for research because they represent a growing sector

within modern western economies of both employment and value creation (e.g.

Aharoni, 1993; Løwendahl et al., 2001). With their flat structures, service-

oriented workforce, and participative decision processes, PSFs can provide a

model toward which larger, more hierarchical organizations can turn for direction

Page 12





as they become leaner, quicker, and more flexible (Liedtka et al., 1997). As PSFs

rely almost purely on skilled human capital, they are often perceived ‘as

harbingers of organization forms in an increasingly human capital-intensive or

knowledge-intensive economy’ (von Nordenflycht, 2006:1). They shape

managerial thoughts and actions through their advice to clients. As PSFs were

among the first to develop and use systems for knowledge management, they are

by some companies viewed as role models (Løwendahl et al., 2001). We will

elaborate on knowledge management under the section ‘Resources within PSFs’.

The performance of the firm ultimately depends upon the performance of its

professionals. Hence, a PSF not only competes for customers, it also compete for talented professionals. They ‘…are forced to attract and retain qualified people

who can adapt their repertoires to meet the demands of the task ’ (Kärreman,

Sveningsson & Alvesson, 2002:73). Even when services are replicated from one

project to another, the marketing of services requires the development of close

relationships with each client (Morris & Empson, 1998). This illustrates the

critical role of the professional workforce as they represent, operate, and translate

the knowledge essential for the firm’s output. Also they play a key role in thefirm’s relationships with clients. In this study, client matters are not included

among our research questions; issues related to clients will be briefly mentioned

where we find it natural as to potentially extend the readers’ overview and insight.

Furthermore, this issue will appear in our ‘Suggestions for Further Research’.

After viewing the importance and uniqueness of PSFs, we have chosen to

summarize the characteristics of PSFs in accordance to the pragmatic definition

proposed by Løwendahl (2009:22), which classifies the firms based on the

services they deliver. She states that professional services:

1. Are highly knowledge intensive, delivered by people with higher

education, and frequently closely linked to scientific knowledge development

within the relevant area of expertise.

2. Involve a high degree of customization.

3. Involve a high degree of discretionary effort and personal judgment by

the expert(s) delivering the service.

Page 13





4. Typically require substantial interaction with the client firm

representatives involved.

5. Are delivered within the constraints of professional norms of conduct,

including setting client needs higher than the profits and respecting the limits of

professional expertise.

2.2.2 Value Creation in PSFs

The most critical and valuable resources of PSFs are identified to be competence

and client relationships (Winch & Schneider, 1993; Sveiby, 1997; Empson, 2000).

These matters are interlinked, as good client relationships nurture a positive

reputation (Stabell & Fjeldstad, 1998). Favorable relationships can in turn

generate access to attractive clients and professional workforce. However, having

an attractive client portfolio is in itself seems not to be sufficient for long-term

sustainability and profitability.

Within a bigger picture, the PSFs needs to pay attention to value creating

processes proposed by Løwendahl (2009): (i) selling ‘a credible promise’; (ii)

delivering what has been promised; and (iii) learning from the selling and delivery

processes, in order to improve both efficiency and effectiveness in future projects.

The first process is what differentiates PSFs form traditional manufacturing firms.

Selling a credible promise concerns persuasion of clients about their capability of

value creation. Regarding the professionals that are engaged in this process, CD

can directly add value in terms of individual, collective and/or organizational

learning. The next process includes both professionals and client representatives

to perform the activities needed in order to deliver what has been promised. In

terms of quality, it is concerned with both the actual quality of the deliverance,

and perceived quality. The last process is about the post learning processes for the

professionals, as to enhance and secure future quality in service delivery. This

third process is by the PSFs the most neglected one, which we identify as a rather

unfortunate fact, as PSFs and CD are dependent on learning. We will elaborate on

the matter of competence under the section ‘Resources within PSFs’.

Page 14





Due to our capacity constraints, client relationships and value creation will not be

of focus in chapter 4 where we analyze and discuss our findings. After presenting

the theoretical foundation of PSFs, we are now turning to our primary focus,

namely the management consulting industry.

2.2.3 Management Consulting

The consulting firms included in this study are treated anonymously hence we are

withholding specific company descriptions, however we have chosen to provide

the reader with a broader overview of the industry at focus. We will here look

more into the management consulting industry as we consider it beneficial to

present the context and our perception of the industry as this may affect the

presentation and discussion of findings at later stages.

The industry includes a wide-ranging set of highly diverse services; hence we

have selected a generic industry definition suggested by Kubr (2002:10):

‘Management consulting is an independent professional advisory service assisting

managers and organizations to achieve organizational purposes and objectives by

solving management and business problems, identifying and seizing new

opportunities, enhancing learning and implementing changes’.

Unlike professional business services, such as physicians or accounting, the

management consulting industry has no professional accreditation or certification

systems, and is not a protected occupation (Armbrüster, 2006). Although industry

associations do exist they are not formally approved professional associations

regulating the practice. Maister (1993) defines the industry as having a quasi-

professional status due to the knowledge-intensity of its services. Nonetheless, the

field of management consulting is still evolving, providing space for competing

ideas of appropriate consulting practice to coexist (Reihlen et al., 2010).

Management consulting outlook

The prominent consulting firms have been advising and reshaping the largest

organizations in the world since the 1920s (McKenna, 2006). Over the past half-

century, the diversity and volume of the market for management consulting

Page 15





services has grown significantly, both in terms of revenues and number of people

recruited (Løwendahl, 1992). Today, the industry shows signs of increasing

maturity (Reihlen et al., 2010). It is still a fairly young industry, however due to

its progress towards a fuller institutionalization (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and

large growth rates during the last decades, McKenna (2006) states that

consultancy services are being added to a mature frame. Another indicator of

maturity is the stratification of elites and non-elites, which vary in terms of

reputation and size (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006).

In the early years, management consulting delivered unique expertise that the

clients did not have. Clients today are becoming increasingly sophisticated andhave developed more demanding attitudes and expectations (Lowe, 2004).

Modern buyers questioning and challenging the views of professionals has

become more predominant – they will ask for justifications, second opinions and

even claim service in the form of excellent ‘beside manner’ in addition to

technical advice (Wiley Knowledge for Generations, 2010). As previously

mentioned, the client-consultant relationship is essential to PSFs (Schön, 1983),

since the professional services are produced in interaction with the client.

The professional services industry, hence also management consulting, is also

faced with market dynamics affecting and implicating the way the businesses are

run (Wiley Knowledge for Generations, 2010). This was recently experienced due

to e.g. the financial crisis. General decrease in demand created by cost cutting

among clients, created fluctuations that disturbed the demand for consulting

services. In such cases, the dilemma for the consultancy firms lies in tight cost

control versus holding on to their people so that they are in the best place when

upturns comes in the long run. Effective recruiting is critical if a firm is to uphold

or increase its capacity to perform. At the utmost importance is also retaining

knowledge accumulated by key professionals, and utilizing it through training of

young professionals. An additional element is that the value of information

diminished as availability increases, hence effective application of knowledge is

becoming a differentiator between firms (Wiley Knowledge for Generations,

2010).

Page 16





The Anatomy of a Consulting firm

The structure of management of consulting firms are centered on the degree of

customization in their activities, and the extent of client interaction (Maister,

1993). The value of the firm is often embedded in the specific talents of their

highly skilled individuals. Leverage, knowledge and experience are the basic

elements of their business models, where the leverage structure is the relative mix

of newly employed, seniors and partners. When the professionals progress and

spiral upwards in the firm, the roles and thereby level of responsibility, and their

work tasks, will evolve. The roles of the professionals may have an explanatory

effect on our findings at later stages in terms of the potential differences in CD on

the three levels mentioned. A right balance in the matching of skills required bythe work to the skills available in the firm is crucial. However, due to resource

constraints it will be impossible to assign the most appropriate people to the

specific projects at all times. The companies’ staff may lack necessary

competence, or professionals with the desired competence may happen to be

occupied on a different project. Consequently, this may also lead to the

professionals being put on repetitively similar projects that we believe could serve

as a constraint to CD. In coping with this issue, the companies engage in resource preplanning, where they identify future projects and the human resources needed

to determine the availability of personnel and the most cost-effective ways of

replacing skills and knowledge shortages. To facilitate this, the firms engage in

actively allocation of assignments, routing staffing requests, ‘…to trade off among

the conflicting pressures of professional development; client demands for quality,

cost effectiveness, and speed; and the preferences of the firm’s members’

(Maister, 1993:157). To what extent this actually functions successfully remains

for our findings to indicate. As a general remark, the service-delivery cost will

decrease the larger the proportion of newly employed to seniors and managers. As

a strategy to win projects, consulting firms market themselves based on their

reputation and their high-profile key professionals, e.g. through their experts,

senior consultants and/or partners. Success in winning projects ‘depends on the

qualities of the professionals as perceived by potential clients’ (Løwendahl,

1992:506). After being awarded projects, they will reallocate the scarce experts

across other projects and clients. Due to shortage of experts, less experienced

consultants will be brought in. Increasing the proportion of newly employed to be

Page 17





used in projects, reduces the costs of the projects. By developing and investing in

the skills of its junior members, the firm adds to the only resource it has to sell:

professional judgment and talent (Maister, 1993). Whether the resource allocation

of staff actually contributes to professionals’ CD, will be illuminated in chapter 4.

People

The young professionals entering this industry are highly ambitious and career

oriented (Maister, 1993). Both the individuals and the organization share

excessive expectations for progress and career development. In the early stages of

their careers, professionals need to develop the necessary technical skills to

perform at work. From a firm perspective, they are intended to deliver e.g.exceptional work for clients, learn how to cooperate with peers, how to manage

teams and how to work with partners who have different skills and preferences.

The individuals entering these firms are openly entering a system inspired by an

“up-or-out” policy, where they either should pursue a career that will lead to long-

term success in the firm, or a timely decision to leave. As professionals progress

in their careers they must learn to deal with the diverging pressures that come

from managing important client relationships, whilst taking on increasing internalresponsibilities regarding the management of the firm. The system within PSFs

might be viewed as Darwinian, since the candidates with the most potential will

spiral upwards, and vise versa. The up-or-out promotional system is highly

present, and the expectations for ‘what constitutes a reasonable period of time of

each stage of the career path’ clearly stated (Maister, 1993:7). When individuals

are not showing progress as expected, they will, either by their own choice or at

the suggestion of the firm, abandon the company. All newly employees face a risk

of not making it, and this creates a pressure to work hard and succeed. We believe

that our interviews might provide insights into how professionals are being

evaluated within the firms under investigation. Further we hope to reveal the

consultants’ perceptions in terms of how the evaluation systems affect their CD.

For many firms the goal is to develop as many young professionals as possible.

Many managers within professional service firms are able to identify a few

professionals who they view as crucial to the company and its survival (Maister,

1993). This is major issue for PSFs, as they need many professionals of this

caliber. These are often the skilled individuals with experience and ability to solve

Page 18





complex problems, often referred to as the experts. Further they are characterized

by bringing in the biggest fees and often have large networks outside of the

company. These experts, and also professionals who have the potential to become

experts, choose the companies to work for with great care (Maister, 1993).

2.3 Resources within PSFs

This section is dedicated to resources within PSFs. First, the resource-based view

(RBV) of the firm is introduced. Based on the previous argumentations for

competence as an essential resource within PSFs, our paper has its foundation in

the RBV. In this view, intangible resources are recognized as fundamental to

value creation and competitive ability (Fosstenløkken, 2007). Thereby we will

secondly introduce the terms of tangible and intangible resources, whereof the

latter will be our focus. Thirdly, within intangible resources, competence and

relational resources can be found, where competence is our focal point. Lastly, we

will turn to knowledge management (KM) and methods of knowledge transfer, as

we find these aspects important for professionals’ CD.

2.3.1 Resource-Based View of the Firm

According to the RBV of the firm, performance differences across firms can be

attributed to the variance in the firms’ resources and capabilities (Hitt et al.,

2001). Resources will be more closely defined under the next section; ‘Tangible

and Intangible Resources within PSFs’.

Valuable, rare, poorly imitable and non-substitutable resources and capabilities

(Barney, 1991, cited in Hitt et al., 2001) comprise the firms unique or core

competences (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990) and thus generate lasting competitive

advantage. These competences come from previous investments made by the firm,

and from learning-by-doing (Prahalad & Hamel, 1990). Managers need to identify

how they create value within their organizations in order to create more value

relative to their competitors. Due to the characteristics of PSFs, creating firm

value through replication of efficient routines and procedures becomes extremely

difficult, as the services they produce are heterogeneous and jointly solved

Page 19





between the professionals and clients in each unique project. In PSFs, firm value

cannot reside in capital equipment and economies of scale from the use of

equipment, so what is then the source of competitive advantage and value creation

in these firms? We will look into these sources this in the following section.

2.3.2 Tangible and Intangible Resources within PSFs

As illustrated in the model below, Løwendahl (2009) distinguishes between

tangible and intangible resources. Tangible resources, as previously mentioned,

refer to e.g. production equipment, technology and buildings, and can be referred

to as highly flexible and general, or highly inflexible and specialized for particular

processes (Løwendahl, 2009). Furthermore, intangible resources can, as illustrated

in the model below, range from ‘relational resources’ in terms of reputation,

loyalty, and relationships on the one hand, and ‘competence’ in terms of

knowledge and capabilities on the other. The intangible resources are more likely

to generate competitive advantage, hence value for the firm (Hitt et al., 2001).

Figure 4. Strategic Resources (Source: Løwendahl 2009:94)

Our study focuses on the latter, namely intangible resources. Taken from

Løwendahl (2009), who in turn builds on Itami’s concept of information-based

invisible assets, resources can be defined as the following: ‘…the people, goods,

and capital a firm can deploy to meet its short- and long-term goals. A small but

Page 20

Tangible

Resources

Intangible

Competence

Individual Collective

Relational

Individual Collective

KnowledgeCapabilities=

Skills+Aptitudes

DatabaseCapabilities=

Skills+”Culture”

ReputationLoyalty

Relationships

ReputationLoyalty

Relationships





increasing number of managers adds information to the list. Consumer trust, brand

image, control of distribution, corporate culture, and management skill are all

informational resources. I call these information-based resources invisible assets,

and they are just as essential for effective operation as the more visible corporate

resources. More than that, I believe they are the most important resources for

long-term success’ (Itami, 1987:12). Even more specifically, since competence

development is our major area of focus, competence as an intangible resource is

highlighted and we will handle this concept in the following section.

2.3.3 Competence

There are many definitions and explanations of competence that are appropriate to

bring up within this discussion, however we have chosen to use the strategic

resources model presented on the previous page, as a basis for the topic of

competence. Hence, we will look into individual competence, as our study sets

out to investigate the professionals and their CD. Despite not being our main

focus, we will also introduce collective competence as it might facilitate a more

complete picture of the interplay between competences that can contribute and

constrain competence.

Individual competence

On an individual level, we choose to apply Nordhaug’s (1993) definition as a

basis for further discussion as he defines work-related competences, which is in

line with the type of competence we are addressing. He states that work-related

competences are ‘the composite of human knowledge, skills and aptitudes that

may serve productive purposes in organization’ (Nordhaug, 1993:50). Nordhaug

explained knowledge as particular information about a subject or within a field.

This type of knowledge can potentially be articulated and transferred. Further, he

suggests that skills are a special ability to perform work-related tasks, and that

these competences are difficult or impossible to articulate. Lastly, aptitudes

‘encompass natural talents that can be applied in work and that form a basis for

the development of knowledge and skills’ (Nordhaug, 1993:51). Aptitudes are as

such, hard to develop. Individuals may possess all three types of competence; yet

the firms employing these individuals must be able to access and mobilize these

Page 21





resources, in order to fully leverage them. Still, the firms cannot fully control

competence residing in individuals, and the individuals themselves are highly

mobile as they can walk out of the office any time and leave the firm.

Further, Nordhaug (1993) distinguishes between formal competence, gained

through e.g. education, training, and real competence. Real competence is referred

to as knowledge, skills and aptitudes that can be applied in work situations.

Hence, his suggestion is that possession of education or documented experience

not automatically can be operationalized in the work-situation. Nordhaug argues

that individual skills and knowledge has to be mediated through aptitudes to turn

operational.

Nordhaug’s definition suits our research question and our initial idea of

knowledge contributing to a large part of an individual’s competence. We find

support for the importance of our focus in Löfstedt (2001), emphasizing the

participation from employees as crucial in the process of CD, and in establishing a

learning organization.

Types of Competences

Since we are dealing with competence, which can be viewed as a quite ambiguous

term, we see it as appropriate to further classify competence to determine the

different types of competence one may develop. Also we feel that this might

contribute to an understanding of the nuances of the broad term competence. By

including this we further feel it enables a more concrete discussion in chapter 4, as

we will connect these typologies to the contributors and constraints of CD, in

relations to our second and third sub research question. There are many different

classifications one may apply to competence, however we have chosen to follow

Nordhaug’s (1993) typology on competence where he combines the dimensions of

‘task specificity’, ‘firm specificity’, and ‘industry specificity’. A model depicting

these competences is included on the next page.

Page 22





Figure 5. A competence typology (Source: Nordhaug, 1993:58)

‘Meta-competence’ is firm nonspecific, industry nonspecific, and can be utilized

in accomplishing a variety of tasks. Examples of this type of competences are e.g.

literacy, analytical capabilities, knowledge of foreign languages and cultures,

capacity to tolerate and master uncertainty, ability to communicate, ability to

cooperate with others, negotiation skills and ability to adjust to change. The main

contributor to meta-competences is the formal education system. However, certain

examples of meta-competences such as creativity, analytical capabilities and

social capabilities may come from other sources work experience and

socialization processes.

‘Industry competence’ relates to acquaintance with the industry, and is known for

having low task specificity, low firm specificity, and high industry specificity.

Examples of industry competence might be e.g. familiarity with the history of the

business, knowledge about the industry structure and current development, ability

to analyze the operations and strategies of competitors and knowledge about key

persons, networks, and alliances in the industry. Industry competences can be

developed through experience of working within an industry, joining industry

associations’ meetings and seminars or it might be transferred through external

consultants in possession of industry specific knowledge.

‘Intra-organizational competence’ is characterized by low task specificity and

high firm specificity. Examples might include knowledge about colleagues,elements in the organizational culture, such as symbols, sub cultures, history,

norms, ethical standards, overviews of communication channels, informal

Page 23

F I R M S P E C I F I C I T Y

LOW HIGH

I N D U S T R Y S P E C I F I C I T YLOW HIGH

LOW

TASK SPECIFICITY

I

Meta-

competences

II

Industry

competences

III

Intraorganizational

competences

HIGH

IV

Standard technical

com etences

V

Technical trade

com etences

VI

Unique

com etences





networks and alliances within the firm, mastery of organizational dialect or code

and knowledge about the firm’s strategy and goals. This type of competences may

mostly stem from every-day learning at work, e.g. through interaction with

colleagues or observations.

‘Standard technical competence’ has high task specificity, low firm specificity,

and low industry specificity and includes a wide range of generally technical

competences. This type of competence can embrace knowledge of generic

budgeting and accounting principles and methods, skills in computer

programming, knowledge of standard computer software, craft skills and technical

professional skills that can be applied across industries. The main generators of standard technical competence are identified as education and training.

‘Technical trade competence’ is known to be task specific, industry specific, and

firm nonspecific. Hence, one may use this competence in other firms, within the

same industry, however it can only be used in accomplishing one or a few limited

work tasks. Examples are skills in building automotive vehicles, aircrafts,

assembling computer hardware, hair cutting etc. Technical trade competences can be developed through vocational training that is limited to only one specific

industry. Also it can be developed through practice and experience in practical

work within the industry.

‘Unique competence’ is highly firm specific and task specific and applies to only

one or a few tasks in one firm only. It includes knowledge and skills related to

operation of unique technology and routines. Examples could include skills

related to the use of specialized tools crafted in the firm, knowledge about

rationalization devices that have been developed exclusively within the company,

skills in operating specialized, local filing or data systems or skills related to the

administration and maintenance of organizationally idiosyncratic routines or

procedures. This type of competence can only be taught within the one firm

however through various methods such as informal learning, in-house training, or

mentoring processes.

Page 24





After viewing individual competences, we will now turn to competences on a

collective level.

Collective competence

Despite our focus on professionals’ competence, and thereby individual

competence, we still see it as necessary to include an explanation on a collective

level since we believe that our findings may touch upon collective issues. At this

point, however, we cannot determine to what extent the collective competences

influence the individuals develop.

On a collective level, competence may refer to information databases, proceduresand culture (Løwendahl, 2009). These categories correspond to Nordhaug’s

individual competence elements discussed earlier in this chapter; namely

knowledge, skills, and aptitudes. Here, competence is concerning collectively

developed routines, procedures and ways of doing work that are shared within the

organization. This collective competence may include e.g. codified knowledge,

norms, routines, culture, language, best practices, and values (Kogut & Zander,

1992; Løwendahl, 1992, 2009). One of the keys to developing and utilizing professional competence to benefit on an organizational level is by ‘reducing the

firm's dependence on its key people’ (Sveiby, 1997:66). This is partly the reason

for why companies invest in technical tools, as to store and facilitate sharing of

knowledge on a firm level. In chapter 4 we will present how technical tools

contribute and/or constraints CD.

Firms’ competence building and competence leveraging activities, represent gap-

closing activities of significant importance for a firm’s competitive position, it

represents important input to the creation of the firm’s ‘organizational knowledge’

(Ylinenpää & Nilsson, 2000; von Krogh, Roos & Slocum, 1994). Furthermore we

will argue that knowledge is one of the main contributors to a professional’s

competence and thereby find it appropriate to devote a part of the thesis to

knowledge within PSFs (Løwendahl, 2009).

Knowledge

Page 25





As argued by Spender (1996), a firm’s knowledge and its ability to generate

specific knowledge are at the core of the theory of the firm. Grant (1996)

identified knowledge as the most critical competitive asset within a company. The

people within the firm possess a major part of organizations knowledge, and the

firms create value through selection, development and use of human capital

(Lepak & Snell, 1999).

Managers are increasingly realizing that the basis of their competitive advantage

is found in their knowledge base, and that development and exploitation of

knowledge is paramount for the sustainability of such advantages. Hence, better

use of existing knowledge, and more effective acquisition and assimilation of newknowledge, becomes a business imperative (Ladegaard & Syvertsen, 2005). The

reality in many professional services is that knowledge is socially constructed,

context specific and ambiguous, rather than composed of objective, clearly

generalizable rules that can be codified in any form (Alvesson, 1993; Orr, 1996 in

Morris, 2001:822). Since knowledge is presumed to be socially constructed, the

risk of professionals leaving the firm is a lurking threat, and a method of reducing

this risk can be found in the establishment of firm loyalty. We will discuss thismatter in chapter 4.

We have understood that knowledge is a term with many, and partly conflicting,

definitions. Moreover a number of dimensions have been proposed of knowledge,

namely explicit and tacit, embodied and embedded knowledge (Polanyi, 1958,

1966; Granovetter, 1985, cited in Løwendahl, Revang & Fosstenløkken, 2001).

However we want to keep the explanation of knowledge as being ‘tacit’ or

‘explicit’, and in need of different strategies to facilitate transfer between

individuals. Further we will consider knowledge both at the individual- and

collective level.

Due to our categorizing of CD into ‘daily operations’ and ‘investments’, when

dealing with our findings, we found it relevant to choose the following

classification of knowledge: Tacit knowledge is partly embedded in individual

skills and partly collaborative working relationships within firms (Szulanski,

1996, cited in Hitt et al., 2001). This type of knowledge is often rooted in

Page 26





uncodified routines (Liebeskind, 1996, cited in Hitt et al., 2001) and in firm’s

social context. Maister (1993) suggests that tacit knowledge is fundamental to

professional skills; and often difficult to imitate and characterized as unique

(Mowery et al., 1996, cited in Hitt el al., 2001). On the contrary, explicit

knowledge can be codified and thus more easily transferred (Liebeskind, 1996,

cited in Hitt et al., 2001). For the professionals, knowledge is gained through

formal education, intended to provide explicit knowledge specific for their job,

and through learning by doing on the job.

At the collective level, Nonaka (1994) identifies knowledge as created by

individuals, however suggests that firms are key in the process of development.Løwendahl, Revang and Fosstenløkken (2001) state that knowledge is a

combination of skills, routines, norms and values that are developed and shared by

more than one professional. Hence, individuals can be argued to be in the center

of knowledge creating activities. Still, organizational knowledge creation can rely

on the firms creating the right contexts through e.g. organizational set-ups as

through technical tools that can generate storing and transfer of knowledge.

2.3.4 Knowledge Management and Methods of Knowledge Transfer

When discussing knowledge we find it essential to discuss knowledge

management (KM), and methods of knowledge transfer within PSFs. Due to the

centrality of the knowledge aspect we find it appropriate to dedicate a section of

this study to introduce our understanding of KM in regards to CD. An additional

reason, underpinning our choice, is found in knowledge-based organizations

frequently being viewed as role models for other firms, in particular when it

comes to KM (Løwendahl, 2009), as also mentioned in previous chapters. Lastly,

since PSFs can be viewed as role models in KM, and that they have an important

function in creating the right contexts for knowledge creation, we hereby assume

this will influence the professionals’ CD. KM systems, if well functioning, can

contribute positively to professionals’ CD through e.g. having relevant

information easily accessible that professionals can utilize for self-studying and

application in daily work.

Page 27





There is a common acceptance that KM will symbolize the largest competitive

advantage for organizations in the new millennium (Drucker, 1993). As defined

by Boh (2007, cited in Zanjani, Mehrasa & Modiri, 2008:390), ‘KM is managing

the corporation’s knowledge through a systematically and organizationally

specified process for acquiring, organizing, sustaining, applying, sharing and

renewing both the tacit and explicit knowledge of employees to enhance

organizational performance and create value.’ The institutionalized knowledge-

sharing mechanisms allow the company to amplify knowledge embodied in

individuals to the collective level (Nonaka, 1994), so that the knowledge easily

can be accessed and shared throughout the organization. When knowledge is

shared, the value of the knowledge grows and multiplies (Cabrera & Cabrera,2002). As indicated by Alvesson (2002), KM provides the companies with

cultural guidance in the norm of knowledge sharing and ‘willingness to help each

other with advise and the sharing of experiences’ (Alvesson 2002:7).

Through our interviews we expect to gain insight into the way KM is dealt with in

the respective firms, and how the initiatives contributes and/or constraints the

professionals’ CD. Based on literature, we initially believe that potential criticaldimensions with regards to KM, hence CD, will touch upon issues such as

willingness and motivation to share knowledge, accessibility, user friendliness of

the technological infrastructures, and trust. A discussion of these elements

potentially will deem appropriate in chapter 4.

KM as a source of competitive advantage has been widely recognized for more

than two decades (Nonaka, 1991). Several researchers (e.g. Davenport & Probst,

2001) have argued for the importance of KM in an increasingly globalized and

service oriented environment (cited in Forstenlechner et al., 2007). Essential to all

services that are provided, is the actual input of knowledge the company receives

(professionals), and the output (service) it can deliver based on this (Hunter,

Beaumont & Lee, 2002). This in turn provides the firms with the basis for the

service that the company can offer to the client. KM involves both the processes

and the strategies that the firms choose, in addition to the communication.

However there are several important issues that might affect communication

within companies, such as the background of the individuals and nationalities

Page 28





(Mäkelä, Kalla & Piekkari, 2007). However, the majority of research conducted

on KM seems to be focused on the organizational level, and thereby neglects

individuals, although knowledge mainly is shared among individuals and not

organizations. This thesis focuses on individual CD, however collectively

developed systems for KM might influence our findings, and is therefore

included.

KM research has shown that consultants and PSFs do not have a uniform method

of managing knowledge. According to Hansen, Nohria & Tierney (1999)

companies must choose between following a ‘codification’ strategy or a

‘personalization’ strategy. The codification strategy involves knowledge beingtransferred into information, e.g. through databases and other technological

applications. By contrast, in companies that emphasize the personalization

strategy the focus lies in dialogue between individuals, and network building

(Harvard Business School, 1999). However, what is important regarding these

strategies is to choose one of them and not try to implement both. Yet companies

can choose to focus on one of the strategies, using the other in a supporting role.

When trying to assess the strategy choice it is deemed essential to evaluate theknowledge that the company deals with on a daily basis, and whether it is tacit or

explicit. In dealing with tacit knowledge, a personalization strategy might be

needed, whereas with explicit knowledge it may be beneficial to focus on the

codified strategy (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999).

Concerning the physical sharing of knowledge it is important to keep in mind that

this is a somewhat volunteer process, and thereby incentives plays a large role

within effective inter-firm knowledge transfer (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999).

Also since employees within a firm cannot be sure of what they will be rewarded

for sharing their knowledge, trust is essential. ‘Without trust the internal market

for knowledge will not function effectively’ (Davenport & Prusak, 1998; Nahapiet

& Ghoshal, 1998; Teece, Pisano & Shuen, 1997, cited in Empson, 2001:210).

After viewing the resources within PSFs, whereof competence has been

predominant, we will now turn to how competence can be developed, how it is

Page 29





evaluated and thereafter the importance of the competence chain to ensure its

utilization.

2.4 Developing and Using Competence within PSFs

In this section we will present previous literature on the topic of developing and

using CD. Firstly, factors that may enhance or inhibit development of competence

will be viewed. Secondly, evaluation methods and tools for measuring knowledge

will be addressed as this is identified as important for firms in aligning internal

behaviors and skills with the strategic direction of the company as a whole.

Lastly, utilization of competences will be turned to, as it is deemed difficult, yet

essential for the organization to reap the fruits of their work put into competence

development (Nordhaug, 1993).

2.4.1 Contributors and Constraints to CD

As described in chapter 1, we gained motivation for the thesis subject from

Fosstenløkken’s (2007) PhD dissertation. We choose to follow her categorization

of contributors and constraints to CD, and further linked them to ‘daily

operations’ and ‘investments’ within the firms. These two routes were built on

Itami (1987) who identified these routes to develop invisible assets. In this section

we will refer to Fosstenløkken’s (2007) main findings in regards to, what she

identifies as, facilitators and constraints to CD. We want to include her findings,

as we want to see if our findings are in line with this previous research on CD, and

because it might generate a better understanding of our second and third sub

research questions, set forth in chapter 1.

Fosstenløkken (2007) investigated CD within four consultancy firms, whereof two

consulting engineering firms and two communication agencies, in Norway. She

found that CD received surprisingly little attention from management in

consultancy firms. CD was found to be of focus in the firms, however was down prioritized. The responsibility for CD was left to the professionals themselves. CD

through daily operations was identified as the major CD facilitator, and was by far

Page 30





more important than CD through investments. In relations to this Itami (1987,

cited in Barney & Clark, 2007:20), he stated that ‘the accumulation and

maintenance of invisible assets indirectly through operations can take more time

than direct efforts, but the results of this process are more reliable’. Itami (1987)

here refers to invisible assets at the firm level, despite this we have chosen to

include his finding as we believe this might be the case on an individual level as

well.

Her facilitators to CD were identified as the ‘informal learning by doing going on

in the day-to-day work for clients, supported by the interaction in intra-firm

relations, client relations, and network relations’ (Fosstenløkken, 2007:291).These findings indicate that CD is an experience-based learning process,

recognized as learning by doing (e.g. Dewey, 1916 in Fosstenløkken, 2007). It

was due to this that her study emphasized on experience as foundation for

learning and development; e.g. the professionals learning conditions. However she

also chose to include organizational investments made to facilitate CD and

learning in groups, as to incorporate the collective learning. On the other hand, the

elements found to constrain CD were concerning ‘high time pressure, unevenwork load, and a lack of routines supporting learning through team composition

and relevant practice opportunities’ (Fosstenløkken, 2007:291).

Fosstenløkken’s findings also suggested that there are between layers differences

in the way the professionals within organizations perceive possibilities for CD,

and that e.g. newly employed and seniors may have quite diverse views on this

issue (Fosstenløkken, 2007, cited in Storey et al., 2009). As the professionals

might have different views of CD contributors and constraints, a distinction of

experience and tenure among the individuals is deemed appropriate. This is due to

the fact that no single individual can have the overall picture of the CD activities

in organizations (Tsoukas, 1996).

We will now turn to issues of evaluation and measurement of CD.

Page 31





2.4.2 Evaluating CD

Despite an overall recognition of the requirements for success, organizations still

strive to find a good method of measuring the development of competence. It is

widely recognized that measuring more intangible concepts, such as competence,

brings with it a lot of challenges. The purpose of measuring intangible assets is

neither to provide a full and comprehensive measuring systems nor to present a

full and comprehensive portrait. This is impossible, hence is the reason why

previous approaches have failed so far (Sveiby, 2001). The firm can control the

elements of tangible assets and organizational competence, whereas the intangible

assets, on the other hand, are controlled by the professionals and contracted to the

organization. As issues of firm reputation and client loyalty are tightly linked to

individuals, rather than firms, the organizations become vulnerable to the potential

of professionals leaving the firm. A challenging element in working with

competence is management’s obligation and need to simplify competence into a

controllable and measurable variable. Management is committed to create

overview, consistency, harmony and strategy aligned development, to be able to

predict development and hence competitiveness. Concurrently, as indicated by

Nordhaug and Grønhaug (1994) and Ulrich (1997) (cited in Boutaiba &Bramming, 2004: 3), ‘management objectives are dominated by a strong strive

and need for complexity, creativity, diversity, autonomy and multiplicity of

competence in a complex and turbulent market.’ The means to ensure

organizational success and the ‘raison d’être’ of competence-based human

resource management system, resides on a range of “promised outcomes”. A

competence-based management is centered around he ability to hire the right

people, train and develop these people to realize their potential, provide appraisalsystems, and identify behaviors and skills that are “proven predictors of success”

(Lucia & Lepsinger, 1999; Spencer & Spencer, 1993). Among the most popular

management development devices in use today, is the 360-degree tool (Toegel &

Conger, 2003).

The 360-evaluation tool is highly useful in ensuring that employees are ‘doing the

right things; clarifying and articulating what is required for effective performance,

such models help organizations align internal behaviors and skills with the

strategic direction of the company as a whole’ (Lucia & Lepsinger, 1999, cited in

Page 32





Boutaiba & Bramming, 2004:3). As further stated by Lucia and Lepsinger (1999),

competence models can facilitate clear job and work expectations, optimize

productivity, ensure hiring of top candidates, improve the 360-degree evaluation

process, adapt to change, align behavior of professionals with strategies and

values of the firm (in Boutaiba & Bramming, 2004).

A general trend in human resource management (HRM) is the movement towards

a more strategic oriented focus, where HR strategies concerning behaviors and

skills are aligned with business strategy. HR-technologies, such as 360-degree

feedback, competence assessment and developmental appraisal systems, are used

as simple, ‘techno-fix’ solutions to the making, distribution, acquisition, accessand application of organizational knowledge (Boutaiba & Bramming, 2004).

Companies use the 360-degree evaluation extensively as a tool to observe and

regard professionals’ competence, and further compare colleagues up against each

other. The problems with such systems are suggested to be that they create

employees and individuals with conceited personalities, preoccupied with their

own appearance and development abilities (Bauman, 2003). Professionals, who

are not evaluated as individuals holding perceptible and classifiable knowledgeand skills, will not appear competent. With this type of evaluation individuals will

be concerned about their work-life appearance, whether their appearance is

aligned with the firm’s expectancies and requirements on employee development

and their appearance as a competent, continuously changing and solid employee.

Additionally, another concern about this tool, due to its popularity, is that it has

been stretched to be used in areas beyond its original purpose (Toegel & Conger,

2003). Originally, the purpose was to measure leadership competences, however

today organizations use this tool to measure “everything and everyone”. From an

economical view, utilizing one single system for measuring performance is

viewed beneficial, however few have taken the time to step back and reconsider

its effectiveness. ‘The dilemma is that in employing one tool and one data

gathering process for such diverse purposes weakens the tool and its ability to

deliver on its objectives’ (Toegel & Conger, 2003:299).

In broader lines, defining, capturing and assessing competence and competent

individuals, are challenging tasks. As illustrated above, companies implement

Page 33





tools such as 360-degree feedback in order to evaluate the competence level of

their professionals, and amongst others tools, this might introduce rather precise

performance expectations and measures. On the other hand, in daily operations it

can appear totally arbitrary and based on appealingly subjective criteria what

competence is evaluated to be (Lucia & Lepsinger, 1999). We hope to gain

findings indicating how the evaluation is carried out within the companies under

investigation.

In addition to being developed and measured, it is essential that competence is

planned, acquired and utilized for optimal benefit, which will constitute the last

section of this chapter.

2.4.3 Process for Utilization of Competence

The stages of planning, acquiring, developing and using competence all together

comprise what is called the ‘competence chain’ in organizations, as seen in the

model below (Nordhaug, 1993). This part of the thesis will mainly be issued

around the last stage of Nordhaug’s model, namely ‘competence utilization’.

" #$ %&' &( ) &!

* &+&,#%$ &( ' !

- . ' &/ ( 0,!

" #$ %&' &( ) &!

1 ) 2 3 454' 4#( !

!

" #$ %&' &( ) &!

6 ,0( ( 4( 7 !" #$ %&' &( ) &!

8 ' 4,490' 4#( !

Figure 6. The Competence Chain (Source: Nordhaug, 1993:28).

The utilization of competences is vital for the organization to reap the fruits of

their work put into competence development (Nordhaug, 1993). Needless to say,

otherwise the process and investments put into CD will be of waste. As discussed

Page 34





earlier, sharing competence is important for PSFs. However, sharing alone does

not necessarily improve firm performance. More specifically it contributes by

laying the ground for effective utilization (Haas & Hansen, 2007).

The collection of competences in a firm can be referred to as the organizations

portfolio of competences (Nordhaug & Grønhaug, 1994). An essential point

regarding this portfolio is that it must be “understood” by both professionals and

management (Nordhaug, 1993). However, as consulting firms along with other

firms, embrace professionals contributing with different kinds of competences, a

challenge for the firm becomes to coordinate and utilize the competences that are

spread out among a large number of individuals (Nordhaug, 1993). On the other hand, more difficulties may arise due to the fact that a number of companies, and

especially knowledge-based organizations, may not be aware of the competences

that are available for potential value creation. In other words they may experience

a problem with under-utilization (Løwendahl, 2009).

Another noteworthy comment made by Nordhaug (1993) was that it is important

to consider the degree of specificity of the competences one possess to determineareas of utilization. In other words, knowing what kind of competence the

professionals are in possession of is not sufficient in itself, however it is also vital

to determine the potential areas of utilization to ensure optimal usage of the

competences. Effective utilization of competences is what may lead to value

creation. Our focus is CD, however it would be interesting to look into the issue

of utilization as the next natural step in value creation for the firm. We will come

back to this in the section ‘Suggestions for Further Research’.

2.5 Summary

The purpose of this chapter has been to review literature relevant to our topic

under investigation, hence our research questions set forth in chapter 1.

First, literature on national culture was presented whereof Hofstede’s (2001)

cultural dimensions were presented as we assumed they could influence our

findings at later stages. Here ‘individualism’, ‘power distance’, ‘uncertainty

Page 35





avoidance’, and masculinity’ were addressed.

Second, literature on PSFs and more specifically management consulting was

presented. Herein, competence is central in these firms as it represents an essential

resource within the PSFs value creation, linked to the process of (i) selling ‘a

credible promise’; (ii) delivering what has been promised; and (iii) learning from

the selling and delivery processes (Løwendahl, 2009).

Third, resources in PSFs were addressed where intangible resources were

identified as essential to a firm’s competitive advantage. Within intangible

resources, ‘relational resources’ and ‘competence resources’ were introduced,whereof the latter represents our main focus. When defining competence,

Nordhaug’s (1993) definition was highlighted and is comprised by knowledge,

skills and aptitudes. As knowledge represents a large part of competence, the last

section was devoted to define knowledge and to introduce the importance of KM

and knowledge transfer.

Lastly, literature on developing and using competence was reviewed. Based onItami (1987) and Fosstenløkken’s (2007) PhD dissertation, two paths to CD were

addressed: CD through ‘investments’ or ‘daily operations’. Further, evaluating

and measuring competence and its development represent a critical challenge for

organizations. A 360-degree feedback is recognized as being heavily used,

however has its concerns. Finally, Nordhaug’s (1993) competence chain was

introduced, as utilization of CD is where the organizations can reap the fruits of

their efforts.

Page 36





3.0 Reserch Methodology

This chapter discusses the methodological considerations and choices that

underlie the research process of this thesis. First, we look into the choice of

research method. Secondly, the context of the data collection will be attended to

in terms of industry, firm, and respondents. Also here the data sources of both

interviews and written material will be addressed, and the actual process of

conducting the interviews. Third, the data analysis is presented. Thereafter, the

quality of the chosen research method and approach is discussed before the last

section considers how the actual presentation of the findings will take place at

later stages of this thesis.

3.1 Choice of Design and Research Method

Research design is related to choices about how one goes about conducting the

actual study. There are three basic designs: ‘descriptive’, ‘exploratory’ and

‘causal’. One of the basic assumptions underlying the choice of descriptive design

is that the researchers have a basic understanding of the specific area being

studied. This approach aims at describing characteristics of an object to be able to

test and determine relationships among two or more variables (Gripsrud, Olsson

& Silkoset, 2004). Causal design is most suitable when researchers seek to test

cause and effects between variables. Lastly, exploratory design is concerned with

generating a thorough understanding and with establishing insights in a particular

area of study; hence this is identified as the most appropriate for this project due

to our type of our overall research question, as our chosen topic requires insight

into the respondents personal experiences, attitudes, and perceptions.

Following this discussion comes the important issue of what methodology to use,

qualitative or quantitative. The methodology determines what we can study, in

addition to the range of possible results and conclusions (Adler, Campbell &

Laurent, 1989). The main focus in quantitative research is on matters related to

structural-, rather than more complex issues of the process (Van Maanen, 1983).

Page 37





Furthermore, quantitative methods are suggested applicable if the aim of a study

is to ascertain ‘how many’, ‘what’, and ‘where’ related questions (Gripsrud,

Olsson & Silkoset, 2004). Qualitative research, on the other hand, leaves more

flexibility for the researcher, which further enables him/her to take fuller

advantage of the richness of data (Wright, 1995). It thereby offers the opportunity

to examine the process of ‘why’ and ‘how’, not just ‘what’. We can then explore

more complex, interdependent issues whereof number counting and statistical

techniques are not of focus, but rather collecting data in its natural setting

(Wright, 1995). A qualitative approach is deemed appropriate for our issue under

investigation since we are dealing with a research question aimed to indicate how

CD is perceived, and we want to explore a complex issue in its real-life setting.Qualitative methods are by Yin (2003) referred to as case studies, which we will

turn to next.

3.1.1 Case Studies

Within qualitative methods, several methods of research can be found, however

we identify case studies as most appropriate. Case studies are frequently used in

various fields of research such as anthropology, psychology, sociology, political

science, and business administration (Eisenhardt, 1989; Yin, 2003). Despite this,

there has in fact not been developed a general definition of case studies adopted

by researchers (Andersen, 1997). However, in business- and management studies,

Yin’s work has played a rather predominant role, making it a frequent reference in

relation to case studies. Yin (2009:18) defines a case study as ‘an empirical

inquiry that investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context,

especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context are not clearly

evident’. It allows the researcher to explore both matters concerning individuals,

and firms (Yin, 2003).

More specifically, three main reasons lay the grounds for the choice of case

studies. It is because the form of the overall research question that we have posed

implies ‘how’ and ‘why’ type of question, which gives us the desire to understand

a complex social phenomenon (Yin, 2003). Also a case study ‘allows

investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life

Page 38





events’ (Yin, 2003:2). Thirdly, the term CD is, as seen previously, a very

ambiguous term which further complicates the research resulting in the need for a

more in depth understanding, to be able to make further conclusions at later

stages.

Another aspect of case studies that we need to consider is whether to choose a

single case- or multiple case design. In our study, a case, also referred to as unit of

analysis, is each individual professional that has been interviewed. With 37 units

of analysis, we thereby have a multiple case design. Also this design is seen as

appropriate since we want to be able to draw cross-case conclusions. We want to

analyze and draw conclusions about differences and similarities of perceivedcontributors and constraints of CD on three levels, namely newly employed,

senior, and partner level. These categories will be addressed under the section

‘Respondents’. We also want to compare across borders between France and

Norway to see if national culture and HQ nationality influences the way CD is

perceived.

We decided to conduct a multiple-case study, a choice that introduces severalimportant implications. Hodkinson and Hodkinson (2001) have identified positive

and negative aspects regarding case studies. Among positive contributions of case

studies worth mentioning, are the insights they can offer of complex situations or

areas of study. Also multiple case studies can enable researchers to generate novel

theories (Eisenhardt, 1989).

On the other hand, as the findings may be complex, issues around presenting the

results to the readers, arise. The task of presenting and explaining the findings, is

not characterized as easy (Hodkinson & Hodkinson, 2001; Patton, 2002).

Additionally, the large scale of the data gathered may offer problems regarding

the complexity of analysis needed to treat the data (Eisenhardt, 1989).

Furthermore, limited generalizability is regarded as a central limitation, as the

results cannot easily be generalized from the case study to the entire population.

Case study methods may risk describing idiosyncratic phenomena, or that the

researcher may be unable to raise the level of generality of the study and theory

(Eisenhardt, 1989). However, we have sought to identify patterns of how CD

Page 39





takes place within the PSFs. More about positive and negative aspects of case

studies will be viewed within ‘Research Quality’.

3.2. Data Collection and Contexts

In the process of gathering data we decided, together with the respondents, that

the data would be of confidential matter. Also, we ensured that that information

given solely would be used in the purpose of this particular study. It was

important that information could not be traced back to the respective firms, and

even more important, to each of the professionals that were interviewed. The

reasoning behind this was that potential sensitive topics were discussed, of which

we had no intentions to reveal the sender of. Due to these confidentiality

agreements, only a limited amount of information can here be presented regarding

industry details and respondents.

3.2.1. Industry Details

The category of PSFs is wide-ranging and encompasses a long list of industries,

including accounting firms, law firms, advertising agencies, architecture firms,

marketing, public relation service firms, and management consulting firms. These

PSFs share common traits, but operate in different contexts in terms of business

regulatory regime, and business environment. This study focuses on large

management consulting firms in the French and Norwegian context. The

empirical part of the study will provide data from a variety of consultancies. The

collection of data was carried out in France, Paris, and Norway, Oslo, within six

PSFs in Paris and seven in Oslo.

3.2.2. Respondents

Regarding the choice of companies to include in this study, we turned to Yin

(2003), suggesting an either maximizing-, or minimizing differences approach.

Although we in our empirical research have regarded various types of industries

within the broader umbrella PSFs, we chose to follow the minimizing differences

guideline in the choice of firms, and hereby solely selecting management

Page 40





consulting firms.

In the selection of informants we were concerned about differences in experience,

gender, nationality, and positions. In each company a minimum of two

professionals in France-, and three in Norway, were interviewed on different

levels of the firms; newly employed, senior, and partner levels, making it possible

to identify potential differences in what may contribute and constraint CD on the

respective levels in the organizations. Also this was done in order to get an idea of

the contrast between the firms’ visions (top management) and the actual

performance (the professionals) of the organization. This can be referred to as

talk-action gap, supported by Tsoukas (1996) who emphasizes that it is essentialnot only to study what the company says it does (in terms of its top managers) in

its CD efforts, but also how professionals themselves perceive the CD within the

firm - both regarding particular investments in learning facilities, and as part of

daily work.

With seniority we follow Sveiby’s definition (1997) referring to the number of

years employed in the same organization. Although we have not rigidly defineddegree of seniority on number of years employed, we have left this consideration

to the respondents themselves to define. As a general remark, however, we can

state that the average newly employed category refer to one to two years of firm

experience, senior consultants between three and five years, and partners as more

than five years. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the different firms

describe e.g. different evolution paths in terms of career development and number

of years associated to each level. Also the firms have different labels for the

different levels, therefore we hereby refer to them by the levels mentioned above,

as to facilitate comparisons and also in order to not reveal sensitive information in

terms of enabling readers to trace statements back to the specific firms.

In the majority of cases we were unfamiliar with the firms and hereby not able to

choose the respondents. Therefore, potential participants were initially approached

via contact persons, such as HR personnel or CEOs, via phone or directly by e-

mail. Almost all of these approaches were successful in terms of the low degree of

rejection. However in our opinion, having HR personnel and/or CEOs assisting us

Page 41





in identifying suitable respondents in accordance to our selection criteria, was

clearly a benefit in many cases, as they have familiarity with individuals within

the respective firms. After receiving at least one contact in each firm, they further

suggested volunteers for the interviews. Furthermore, information was also

collected from two ‘expert’ interviews and their statements have been used in

terms of contributing to our interpretation and discussion of findings. These key

informants were approached through both an academic network and a talent

network where we had access. They were contacted and included, as they

presumably were especially knowledgeable on the issue of interest. They both had

extensive experience within PSFs in various stages both with- and without

managerial responsibilities. Furthermore, one of the key informants has predominantly focused on PSFs in Norway, whereas the other key informant has

more experience with France and international PSFs. Approaching key informants

has previously been criticized as it can be discussed to what extent the

information given is transferable on large firms. Our conversations with the key

informants were conducted at later stages of our interview process. Their input

was valuable in terms of not only sharing their insight, but also in the way that

they contributed to reassuring that our perceptions and interpretations were in linewith their experience on a general level. Hence, our conversations were of a more

informal matter. Statements from our key informants will not explicitly be

addressed however we believe that their insight provided us with wider

perspectives and possibly a higher level of insight when interpreting our findings.

Overall, the key informants only served a supportive role to us personally in the

investigation process.

All together, our data consists of 37 in-depth interviews, whereof 14 with French

professionals, 21 with Norwegian professionals and two with key informant

interviews - one in Paris and one in Oslo. Finding interviewees in Paris proved to

be more of a challenge than in Norway. In two of the firms it was impossible

within the set timeframe to find respondents on all three levels, as not everyone

who was contacted wanted to participate. In the model presented on the next page,

an overview of the respondents is presented. Newly employed is referred to in the

model as NE, senior consultants as S, and partners as P. Despite differentiating

between males and females in the table, we have chosen not to further

Page 42





differentiate between them in our analysis, since we do not view it as central to

answer our sub research questions.

Total: 37 interviews

including two key

informant interviews

Norway

(21 interviews)

France

(14

interviews)

Company A NE (x2): f

S: f

P: f

NE: m

S: f

P: m

Company B NE: f

S: m

P: m

NE: m

S: f

P: m

Company C NE: m

S: m

P: m

NE: f

S: f

P: f

Company D NE: m

S: f

P: m

NE: m

P: m

Company E NE (x2): m + f

S: f

P: m

NE: m

P: m

Company F NE: f

S: m

P: f

P: m

Company G S: f

Figure 7: Overview of respondents

3.2.3 Interviews and Written Material

The main sources of data are interviews and previous research on the topic under investigation. According to Patton (2002), there are three types of qualitative

interviews that can be conducted, requiring different preparations,

Page 43





conceptualization, and instrumentation. These alternatives are; ‘the informal

conversation interview, the general interview guide approach and the standardized

open-ended interview’ (Patton, 2002:342). These alternative approaches to

interviews differ in several areas, one of them being the extent to which the

questions for the interview are prepared and standardized in advance. The

‘informal conversation interview’ depends heavily on a spontaneous generation of

questions from the interviewer during the interview, and is sometimes referred to

as unstructured interviewing. When utilizing the ‘general interview guide

approach’ a set of issues or topics is identified before the interview starts, serving

as a checklist for the interviewer in the process. The ‘standardized open-ended

interview’ has a set of clearly defined and carefully worded questions in order toguide the respondents through a similar sequence, leaving little room for

individuality and flexibility (Patton, 2002). Based on these arguments, the general

interview guide approach has been used for our interviews, as it is deemed the

most appropriate method for the issue under investigation. We had a list of key

words and specific questions that were predefined. It was important for us that the

respondents touched upon certain key words and issues. However it was also

important that we could maintain the flexibility to adjust conversations to therespondents and his/her unique experience, and to what would be of interest to

retrieve in-depth information about. Therefore we found the informal conversation

interview too general and not to the point, and the standardized open-ended

interview too rigid.

3.2.4 The Interview Process and Transcription

The interviews were conducted between early January and late July, 2011. The

duration of the interviews varied based on time available of the interviewees,

however all interviews lasted between ½ and two hours. Most interviews were

conducted at the respondents’ respective work place in meeting rooms, however

some were held at external locations such as at BI Norwegian Business School,

and at cafés/coffee shops. Both authors conducted the majority of the interviews

jointly, however a few were conducted separately as one of us was in Paris/Oslo

at the time. The majority of interviews consisted of face-to-face conversations

with the respondents, however due to cost and time constraints, some interviews

Page 44





were conducted via phone or Skype. Skype was preferred when possible, as it

enabled video conversations, leaving room for visual observations and making it

more close to a face-to face conversation. Most interviews were done once,

however a few were interviewed twice in order to elaborate on findings revealed

in the first interview.

When starting the interviews we introduced our topic more thoroughly and gave

the respondents information about the interview and how it would go about. Also

we ensured the interviewees that the information from the interview was of

confidential matter. Thereafter we asked each respondent to briefly introduce

themselves and their background, to enable an assessment of their degree of responsibility. The questions regarding background included e.g. education,

seniority in the company, and work-related tasks. Further, the conversations

became more specific, focusing on the topic of CD of both positive and negative

matters, as well as culture. Throughout the interview we asked follow-up

questions on interesting subjects and made sure they covered the relevant key

words of interest. When ending the interview, all respondents were given the

opportunity to add information on their own initiative. Also, they were asked if they would be available for questions at a later point if necessary. Some follow-up

phone calls and/or e-mails were sent. This was due to new findings occurring later

in the process of conducting interviews, which we found interesting to retrieve

more information on from a larger number of respondents.

Since most interviews were conducted jointly, a tape recorder was generally not

used, however in the cases where interviews had to be conducted by one of us, a

tape recorder was included to enable us to capture as much information as

possible. During interviews, we emphasized on writing down statements as

nuanced as possible, often including general observations such as pauses and body

language. As soon as each interview was completed, information was transcribed

in the aim of preserving as much information as possible, as it was fresh in mind

(Eisenhardt, 1989). In the process of transforming the interviews into written

transcripts, the presentation naturally became somewhat more formal. However,

preserving the spoken form was emphasized. The interviews in France were

conducted in English and thereby transcribed in English, whereas the interviews

Page 45





conducted in Norway in Norwegian, were transcribed in Norwegian. This

translation process can have important implications and concerns regarding

especially interpretation, which we will turn to now.

3.2.5 Interview Concerns

As with other types of research and methods of conducting research, interviews

are also in risk of biases and general attentive issues that should be considered.

Firstly, a concern may be to what extent the professionals are able to discuss,

express, and communicate their opinions, feelings, experiences and perceptions.

This concern could be especially predominant as our issue under investigation

(CD) in the first place is recognized as being rather ambiguous. However,

interviews compared to other approaches, such as observations, may provide the

respondents with time to more closely think and reflect upon the questions or

topics at matter. We did in many situations experience that the interviewees took

the time to think carefully through their responses. Being able to take their time to

think seemed to be appreciated by the respondents, and we also opened up for

clarification questions if questions were unclear or if language would become a

barrier. However, we were aware of the potential biases that may arise due to

respondents talking about previous experiences and perceptions. Here, faulty

memory, exaggeration, dishonesty and misunderstanding of the interview

purpose, can lead to bias in our results (McCrank, 2002). Since we have based our

reporting and analysis of data on the respondents statements, we will leave it to

the readers to make decisions about the credibility of our analysis and our

responses to the sub research questions.

Secondly, the issue of language and translations is an important concern as

interviews with French professionals were conducted in English. In general we

seemed not to have issues regarding misunderstandings or language barriers, as

the level of English was high among all respondents. In some cases, questions

needed to be repeated and/or specified, however it seemed to be related to the

complexity of the topic, and not language barriers. The French interviews in

general required a bit more time, however we considered this as positive as it

might enhance the quality of the output. Also, a concern regarding language is

Page 46





that the perception of words and concepts may differ. The differences in

perceptions of the concept of competence and CD are examples which one should

be aware of. Therefore, we initially asked respondents to briefly explain how they

perceived the concepts. In almost all cases, after we had introduced our study and

issue of interest, this seemingly posed no concerns on the issue of perception. In

the few situations where the respondents had a different perception than the

relevance within this study, we briefly explained and gave examples to make sure

that we had ensured a similar point of departure. Furthermore, when translating

and transcribing the Norwegian interviews, we were again aware of potential

translation barriers. This is because it can pose challenges regarding alterations

due to translations of interviews, used for findings at later stages. However indealing with this, we focused on translating the meaning of statements rather than

on the explicit words.

Lastly, the aspect of confidentiality also raises important questions in terms of

what kind of information the respondents are willing to give. Respondents may

not be comfortable talking about sensitive matters, especially if they may think or

fear that their colleagues, or even partners, can gain access to this information.Therefore, we assured the respondents of the information being of confidential

matter in the beginning of each interview. We also explained how they would be

referred to in the study, namely by labels of newly employed, senior consultant or

partner, and also sometimes by female/male. This would then ensure that no

statements or information could be traced back to each respondent. The

confidentiality agreement worked effectively in the way that most respondents

were perceived as open and willing to discuss potentially sensitive areas.

Actually, the respondents sometimes seemed to enjoy being asked about

themselves and their work, and to talk freely about issues without consequences

or judgment.

Despite aspects or concerns described above, the general interview guide

approach were by us seen as a fruitful way of investigating complex processes,

such as CD.

Page 47





3.3 Data Analysis

The sub research questions identified in chapter 1, will guide the data analysis that

was carried out through a cross-case analysis. According to Yin (2003) a crucial

point in this kind of analysis is to look for similarities and differences. In our

situation, similarities and differences have been identified in terms of what

contributes and constraints CD across levels of professionals, and across borders.

The viewpoints have been themed looking for patterns of similarities and

contrasts, as Patton (2002) suggested. These viewpoints were themed based on

what was repeatedly mentioned by the professionals in the way that it was either

within or through these arenas, that CD was facilitated or constrained. The themed

viewpoints have thereby served as a basis for comparison for our cross-case

analysis. These areas are in the next chapter referred to under the headings ‘CD

through Investments’, and ‘CD through Daily Operations’. More specifically,

examples of the areas are e.g. ‘Mentor and Support Systems’, ‘Courses and

Training’, ‘Learning by Doing’. We believe that this categorization can lead to a

sharpening of the findings, as patterns of similarities and differences might be

easier to grasp by grouping them.

For the analysis and discussion on national culture, and its influence on CD, the

basis for comparison was built on how the professionals perceived certain aspects

related to culture. More specifically we asked questions about areas that we could

link to Hofstede’s (2001) cultural dimensions such as hierarchy and their culture

for asking questions. The culture section does however not include a cross-case

comparison in this context. This is because we expected culture not to influenceone level more than the other, but rather on a collective level. Overall

comparisons have however been made between France and Norway, illuminated

by national culture of the professionals and HQ nationality.

After presenting more thorough information regarding the research methodology,

it is here deemed appropriate to look more into the issue of research quality.

Page 48





3.4 Research Quality

In the early stages of the methodology sections, positive and negative aspects of

qualitative case studies were addressed, and now more specific considerations on

the matter of quality will be reviewed. Patton (2002) states that validity and

reliability are two factors that any qualitative researcher should be concerned

about while designing, analyzing results, and judging the quality of the study.

Methodologically, the overall aim for all kinds of studies is to research reliability

and validity (Patton, 2002). The two terms however, usually refers to quantitative

methods and may not always be directly transferrable to qualitative research

(Golafshani, 2003).

Reliability

Reliability is concerned with the consistency of your measurement (Pedhazur &

Schmelkin, 1991). If another researcher were to carry out the same study again,

would it generate the same results? An important issue to keep in mind regarding

this is that in qualitative research, the researchers impact is prominent as she/he is

the ‘instrument’ (Patton, 2002). The researcher is actively engaging in the

processes of collecting data, interpreting reality, and participating in the context(Patton, 2002). In this study, to enhance reliability, we have been conscious about

these issues throughout our research, as suggested by Patton (2002). However,

people and relations change over time, knowledge about competence,

organizations and society can be viewed as relative (Fosstenløkken, 2007).

Furthermore, the interaction between the researcher and respondent may influence

data. This may be due to fact that the strength of the analysis is depending on

credibility, competence, and rigor of the researcher (Fosstenløkken, 2007).Thereby, the exact same results may be hard to yield despite having the same

purpose and point of departure, using the same methods, and focusing on the same

issues. We hope in this thesis to strengthen reliability by making the research open

for potential scrutiny, as Eisenhardt (1989) suggests. This includes many aspects

of consideration. For example by a stated awareness of the research process,

detailed descriptions of the research design, context, data sources and analysis,

avoiding biased questions in interviews, and by reassuring our understandings of

the respondents answers. Also, we have had a focus on honesty and openness

throughout the whole interview process. With regards to the researchers abilities

Page 49





and skills in any qualitative research, Patton (2002) states that reliability is a

consequence of the validity in a study.

Validity

‘Validity determines whether the research truly measures that which it was

intended to measure or how truthful the research results are. In other words, does

the research instrument allow you to hit ‘the bull’s eye’ of your research object?’

(Joppe, 2000:1, cited in Golafshani, 2003). To enhance validity in this thesis the

main concepts and dimensions used to classify and sort data have derived from

theory. The research question outlined has led the data collection. Additionally, by

relying on multiple people, companies and sources of data (interviews and writtenmaterial), the relationship between the concepts studied and the empirical data

seen as indications of the concept, were possibly enhanced. Interviews were in

most cases conducted together by both of us, enabling subsequent discussions

between us, which is likely to enhance the validity of our interpretations.

Furthermore, since we have worked together throughout the process, our

perceptions of statements from interviewees have not always been aligned. When

this issue occurred we contacted the respondents to reassure that our perceptionsof their responses were correctly interpreted. This was done in order to not

misjudge meaningful responses that could consequently influence our findings

and analysis. Where our perceptions of concepts and theories were not in line, we

searched for answers through lengthy discussions and in additional literature.

Generalizability

Generalizability refers to the ability to generalize the results of our study to other

settings (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). So in our case, could we generalize our results

to other industries? According to Andersen (1997) it is generally viewed as being

more difficult to generalize from qualitative case studies based on theoretical

representation, because of the typically smaller sample. Despite this, our study

includes data found within seven firms (in total 13 divisions in total), which likely

increases the potential for providing more comprehensive insight into the

complexity and variety of CD processes in our firms under investigation, than a

single firm study. However, generalizability will here not closely be discussed, as

we at not aiming at generalizing the results to a larger population. Rather, this

Page 50





thesis aims at describing considerations and proceedings in order to make the

research and insight accessible for others. This is done in order to allow

comparisons with other settings and evaluate the potential analytical

transferability of the findings (Yin, 2003). Through stating the supporting

evidence and making explicit arguments, the readers may themselves judge the

soundness of the statements and claims made in our thesis.

Credibility

Credibility refers to whether the results of qualitative research are credible or

believable from the perspective of the participants in the research or study

(Research Methods Knowledge Base, 2006). From this perspective, the purpose of qualitative research is to describe or understand a phenomenon of interest from

the participant's view; the participants are the ones to judge the credibility of the

findings or results (Eisner, 1991; Patton, 2002). This study can enhance credibility

by providing information about the industry and respondents in general, but also

through providing discussions of the methods used, including the sequence of

empirical investigation and presentation of findings. Additionally the presentation

of the empirical findings is supported by the use of quotes from the interviews, assuggested by Patton (2002). Also, thorough comparisons between our findings

and theory are made and illustrated in this thesis. By doing so, it is illustrated how

our findings can relate to existing theory and thereby one may argue that the

trustworthiness of the results can be strengthened.

In addition to the quality criteria for research we also found it appropriate to

address the ethical aspects as this too relates to the quality of a study.

Ethical Considerations

The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and the

Humanities (NESH, 2009) has developed guidelines for research ethics of which

many could be applied in this study. However, when relating the guidelines to the

methodology, three are of obvious importance and will here be addressed. These

three are; the obligation to obtain consent, the obligation to inform research

subjects, and the confidentiality requirements.

Page 51





First, as a general rule, projects that include individuals, may only take place after

the participants’ free and informed consent (NESH, 2009). When contacting the

interviewees, they were informed that their participation was voluntary. The

respondents always had the freedom to cancel their participation, without bearing

negative consequences. None of the respondents made use of the latter

opportunity.

Second, this study has considered the obligation to fully inform the respondents

(NESH, 2009). This in practice means that the professionals who have been

interviewed, have been given all the information necessary to form a reasonable

understanding of the research field, the consequences of participating in theresearch, and the purpose of the research. This information was provided both via

e-mail prior to the interviews, and was repeated at the beginning of each

interview. Respondents were given the opportunity to ask clarifying questions if

necessary. However, due to this study being exploratory, it was important not to

give the respondents any predisposed ideas, which might have reduced

trustworthiness. Therefore, only sufficient, and not a detailed presentation of the

study, were given before the interviews started.

Third, participants are entitled to receive information about that personal matters

are treated confidentially. The researcher must prevent the use and dissemination

of information that can harm individuals that are subject to the research (NESH,

2009). In the beginning of each interview, all respondents were told that the

information from the conversations would be treated confidentially. Respondents

were also told that statements made, would only be referred as statements

stemming from the respective levels; newly employed, senior consultant or

partner either of French or Norwegian origin, and sometimes also female/male.

At this point, we have sought to provide thorough information about the

methodology of our study, and we will now more closely address how our

findings will be presented in chapter 4.

Page 52





3.5 Presentation of the Findings

In chapter 4, where the main findings regarding culture and CD will be presented,

we had to make choices on what to include and how to present it, as Patton (2002)

have emphasized the importance of. To make the data material comprehensible, it

is necessary to make a selection from the findings. Therefore, readers have to rely

on our choices of findings included. In qualitative analysis, it is important and

necessary to make decisions that provide indications regarding the variations in

the credibility of different findings (Patton, 2002). ‘Hence, selecting material

strengthens credibility and quotes that illustrate what we believe are

“representative” views of the respondents’ (Fosstenløkken, 2007:103). The

statements from the respondents will be presented in italics. Using expressions

such as e.g. ‘all’, ‘most’, ‘few’, and ‘none’ indicate the relative strength of the

findings. The findings will in our study be presented together with the analysis

and discussion, since in case-studies it may not always be appropriate to impose a

strict line between the three components; findings, analysis and discussion

(Thomas, 2011). Further reasons for the appropriateness of combining these

chapters are several. Firstly, we find it appropriate as to avoid repetition.Additionally we feel that it facilitate a more fruitful and thorough discussion,

because we see the issues as naturally interrelated. Hence, we do not see it as

beneficial to impose a strict line between findings, analysis and discussion, since

one infiltrates and merges into the other. We feel that by doing so, the sub

research questions can be discussed in a way that enables broader and more

nuanced “answers”.

Different approaches can be used to present the data in qualitative research.

Despite this, descriptions and quotations are the essential ingredients, and are

thereby used (Patton, 2002). Due to confidentiality agreements, as mentioned

previously, the findings will be referred to as stemming from a newly employed,

senior consultant, or partner.

Page 53





3.6 Summary

This chapter has described how our study was conducted. In relations to the sub

research questions that have been outlined, an exploratory, qualitative case study

design has been used. Our data are based interviews conducted within six

management consultant firms in France and seven in Norway, in total 37

interviews. Additionally, two key informants have been interviewed whereof one

French and one Norwegian. The respondents differ in terms of gender, tenure,

experience and education. The data sources for this thesis are mainly interviews,

however supported by selected literature. To enhance research quality and

credibility, we pursued openness in relations to the research process and also

ethical guidelines were followed.

The next chapter of this study will contain the main empirical findings from the

37 interviews. These findings will be presented together with the cross-case

analysis and discussion.

Page 54





4.0 Findings, Analysis and Discussion

This chapter of the study contains the empirical findings of the sampled firms. We

have chosen to conflate the findings with analysis and discussion altogether.

Thomas (2011) suggested that findings, analysis and discussion might be

conflated into one chapter, depending on the nature of your work as mentioned in

chapter 3. First, the cultural aspect and its influence on CD development will be

discussed. A comparison across borders will here be addressed as to see to what

extent one may find differences in firms with the same HQ nationality. Then, the

main contributors and constraints to CD through investments made by the firms,

and through daily operations, will be of focus. Here, the three levels of

professionals will be referred to, to be able to compare and view contrasts and

similarities of what contributes and constraints CD among the three levels. The

comparisons are guided by the three sub research questions, as posed in chapter 1.

Also, the types of competence developed or inhibited from the CD processes will

briefly be presented. This is done as competence has been identified as an

ambiguous term and we want to illustrate the nuances in competences, enabling

more concrete examples of what the CD processes can generate.

4.1 Culture

(i) How does national culture of the professionals and the companies’ influence

their development of competence?

4.1.1 National Culture

Differences do exist on the four cultural dimensions posed by Hofstede (2001),

however the effects of culture are less significant compared to our initial beliefs.

In the initial stages, national culture was expected to have an influence on the

companies and their way of operating, which in turn could influence how the

professionals develop competence. However, we are not in a position to state to

what extent the culture may influence, but only how it may influence CD. When

Page 55





comparing the different cases across the national borders the findings were

surprising in the way that national culture seemed to have less influential power

than first expected. We will here not compare the different levels of professionals,

as culture did not seem to influence one level more than the other, rather it

influenced more on a collective level. Here the comparisons will be made between

France and Norway illuminated by national culture of the professionals or HQ

nationality. We also asked professionals if they had any thoughts on the potential

difference one may find across borders. Most respondents thought similarly as us,

that differences would occur and be clearly evident in certain cases across the four

cultural dimensions that were discusses in chapter 2.

None of the two cultural dimensions - uncertainty avoidance and masculinity

seemed to influence how the professionals developed competence across borders.

Regarding uncertainty avoidance, we assumed that the French culture, scoring

higher on uncertainty, could influence the need for clearer task specification

and/or need for frequent feedback and evaluations. Few differences could be

found across borders as professionals, both in France and Norway, on all levels

appreciated autonomy and feedback on their work and had no special needs for clear task specification. Regarding masculinity we raised the question whether

this dimension could influence in terms of focus and priority on CD. However no

major differences could be found across borders. CD seemed to be viewed and

prioritized quite equally. We will come back to the prioritization of CD under the

next two parts of this chapter, namely CD through daily investments and through

daily operations.

However on the dimension of power distance, differences could be found across

borders regarding CD. The French culture is known to have larger power distance,

which may influence the communication and asking culture within companies.

This was evident in some situations, meaning that it seemed to influence on a

collective level within some of the firms in France. This in turn, had a negative

effect on CD. Other respondents when being asked to tell about the French

perception of hierarchies could not relate to this being a problem at all. More

specifically it seemed to influence the asking culture and interaction between

professionals across layers. Regarding vertical interaction, which is concerned

Page 56





with interaction between layers, accessibility was clearly affected by the higher

power distance in France. This could be exemplified through the fact that few

newly employed in France, felt they could approach especially partners with

questions. The horizontal interactions, which deal with e.g. within-layer

interactivity and collaboration seemed not to be affected as much.

Individuality was expected to influence in the way that HQ nationality could

influence degree of collaboration and willingness to share information. Most firms

are U.S.-based and thereby score extremely high on the index for individualism.

Less willingness to share was clearly evident, however only in France. Thereby

we started questioning if HQ nationality was the factor that could explain our results. If so, we should also find a lower willingness to share in Norway as well -

we did not.

Then we started questioning if organizational culture could help explain the

difference. Since organizational culture was not reviewed in the chapter 2, and

this issue occurred during our investigation, we here see it as important to present

theoretical aspects of the organizational culture as an influential element on CD processes. Organizational culture is by Kubr (1996:108) known as ‘a peculiar mix

of values, attitudes, norms, habits, traditions, behaviours and rituals that, in their

totality is unique to the given organization.’ Furthermore, Nordhaug (1993) states

that culture shapes the environment for learning through values and norms

attached to the development of competence. According to Kubr (1996),

organizational cultures are reflections of national culture however including other

aspects as well, such as values and norms. The fact that organizational cultures are

reflections of national culture, could potentially explain our results to a certain

degree in the way that differences occurs in organizational culture across borders.

Since many of the companies are U.S. based, the organizational cultures are

assumed to be reflection of that national culture. However, if organizational

culture were solely a reflection of the U.S. based culture, and that the norms and

values are based on this, we would not see such evident differences regarding the

willingness to share. Hence, we assume the organizational culture is just as much,

reflections of the French and Norwegian culture. If so, the differences that thereby

occur in the organizational culture, in terms of norms and values, may influence

Page 57





how knowledge is shared, and in turn CD. Through our interviews, a Norwegian

partner said that for sharing of knowledge to happen, there needs to be a culture

for it, it must be anchored in the organizational culture through norms and

values, not necessarily through rules and obligations. When viewing the

organizational culture we do feel that it might be the additional norms and values

across borders that can partly explain the differences. However not fully, and we

therefore want to introduce another possible element of culture that might

influence, namely Hall’s (1990) key concepts of nonverbal communication.

Hall is best known for his work in intercultural relations and communication and

especially his studies on nonverbal communication (2011). He has developed keyconcepts of the underlying structure of culture, whereof high and low context

culture is one of these concepts that might contribute to an understanding of this

finding. The characteristics of each of the two cultures are identified in the table

below.

High Context Cultures (France) Low context Cultures (Norway and the U.S.)

Less verbally explicit

communication, less written/formalinformation

More internalized understandings of

what is communicated

Multiple cross-cutting ties and

intersections with others

Long term relationships

Strong boundaries- who is accepted

as belonging vs. who is considered

an "outsider"

Knowledge is situational, relational.

Decisions and activities focus around

personal face-to-face relationships, often

around a central person who has authority.

Rule oriented, people play by external

rules More knowledge is codified, public,

external, and accessible.

Sequencing, separation--of time, of space, of activities, of relationships

More interpersonal connections of

shorter duration

Knowledge is more often transferable

Task-centered. Decisions and activitiesfocus around what needs to be done,

division of responsibilities.

Figure 8: Characteristics of high and low context cultures (Source: adapted from JB Intercultural

Consulting, 2003).

France is according to Hall (1990), defined as a high context (HC) culture and

Norway and the United States as low context (LC) cultures. A few of the

characteristics in the table above seem to be in line with our findings. One

example is the fact that in the French culture, there are strong boundaries between

social groups and between who is regarded as being within and who is an

Page 58





outsider. One can relate Hall’s work to that of Sumner’s early work, as he in his

book ‘Folkways’ (1906) made distinctions between ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’

(in Schneider, 2004). In the French culture it seemed to become an issue of

“them” and “us” as a French senior explicitly put it: we are French… we don’t

like to share with people we don’t know. Another French senior consultant

followed the same path by saying that I’ve been in the same team for a long time.

We haven’t included any new members and we don’t want to include people we

don’t know. When following up his statement, he reasoned that this was because

they did not want to share their knowledge and spend time on this effort if the

team functioned well already. The seemingly lack of culture for sharing can

further be explained by Hall (1990), as he stated that some foreign employeesview the French as sometimes difficult to deal with. The French ‘tend not to relate

well to others; the French are too individualistic to be good team players’ (Hall,

1990:124). One must keep in mind that much may have happened since this book

was published, however our findings do indicate that traces of these cultural traits

still exist. Also HC cultures have less verbally explicit communication and less

written/formal information because they do not always feel the need for

contexting which is ‘the process of filling in background data’ and to explicitlystate all information (Hall, 1990:7). In LC cultures on the other hand, more

knowledge is codified, public, external, and accessible in different situations, and

thereby appropriate to assume in work contexts as well. Due to the high and low

context cultures depending on different methods of conveying information and

knowledge, conflicts between the two cultures could arise (Soley & Pandya,

2003). We feel that these arguments might be possible explanations to the

differences we have experienced in willingness to share information especially

across the French border. Even though, no matter the reason for why professionals

seemed to be more individualistic in France, this cultural aspect functioned as a

clear constraint of their CD. We believe it is a clear constraint as learning from

others was identified through the interviews as an essential contributor to CD.

Learning from others his will be illuminated in under ‘Daily Operations’.

To answer the first sub research question, national culture influences how

professionals develop competence in the way that it affects the interactions among

individuals in the management consulting firms, in both countries. In France, the

Page 59





culture reflects negatively upon CD in aspects related to the culture for asking

questions and sharing knowledge. In Norway, the culture for asking questions can

be perceived quite different due to the lower score on Hofstede’s (2001) power

distance dimension. The attitude for sharing knowledge was found to be more

positive in Norway, despite the similar score on the individuality dimension. We

thereby posed a possible explanation through Hall (1991), who differentiates

between how the French and Norwegian people communicate.

4.2 CD Through Investments

(ii) What are the main contributors and constraints of the professionals’

competence development through investments made by the firms in CD

processes?

All firms in our sample, in both France and Norway, seemed quite conscious

about designing CD efforts for their professionals. CD through investments is here

understood as activities on CD, initiated and invested in by the firm. During our

interviews many activities were mentioned however the following arrangements

were highlighted: ‘Mentor Programs and Support Systems’, ‘Training and

Seminars’, ‘Evaluation Systems and Measurement’ and ‘Technical Tools’. Within

these investments, the main contributors and constraints can be found. Our

findings suggest that investments made by the firm influence the CD processes of

professionals, at all three levels. Hence, these findings support Itami’s (1987)

suggestion that such investments represent an important route to CD.

4.2.1 Mentor Programs and Support Systems

In all of the companies where respondents were interviewed, a mentor support

system can be found. Consultants face extremely challenging and stressful

development requirements. Among numerous other pressing issues, they will face

an increased range and complexity in responsibilities, requests and demands for

leadership and professional skills, meeting the requirements from colleagues,

Page 60





managers and other professionals, and all this in the context of meeting and

placing a large number of new people within a short period (Maister, 1993). In

order to support the new consultants they are often given access to at least one

designated colleague – recognized as a mentor, coach and/or personal manager.

The benefit of this support is that this person is intended to be available for

professional and personal advice and support. The role of the mentor is to assist

the less experienced professionals in their development, and to advise them on

issues such as time management, deciding on priorities, delegation, managing

conflicts and problems, and professional development. Whereas some had support

systems mostly for the newly employed, others had extended the duration up even

to a young partner level. We believe that the need for mentor systems at partner level might have been identified in newer times as markets are changing more

rapidly and clients are becoming even more demanding (Wiley Knowledge for

Generations, 2010).

Contributors

When comparing the respondents, almost all viewed mentor support systems as

positive and crucial for individual development in terms of CD. Most respondentsin both countries, on all three levels, identified mentors as major contributors to

CD. Not necessarily directly, however indirectly through receiving ‘guided

experience’ that contributed to the professionals’ development (Maister, 1993).

Among the reasons mentioned for this positive view, was that mentors contributed

to e.g. professionals setting appropriate goals for their career development, that

they advised them on a broad set of issues, and that they encouraged the

professionals to explore new projects. Most professionals at newly employed

level, mentioned that learning from more experienced consultants was an

important element in their own CD. They referred to their mentors as teachers,

helping them making sense of the system they were a part of.

The main contributors identified through the interviews are in line with previously

identified benefits in literature. Despite our agreement with Maister (1993), who

suggested that the existence of these systems is favorable, our findings moreover

indicate that also senior professionals find mentor systems important. When

comparing across cases, we see that many seniors and partners in both countries

Page 61





find mentors crucial on their level as well. A French partner stated his

appreciation of mentor system, as it recently was implemented on partner level

within his firm: The first year of partnership is very difficult! We have seen a

clear need for this, especially in order to ensure that our partners still develops

and not stagnates after achieving partner status. A Norwegian partner, whom

turned partner exceptionally quickly, acknowledged that this would not have been

feasible without the help from his mentor. The relationship with his mentor was

stated to be central in his fast-tracked development. His mentor had been key in

helping him developing a fortunate client portfolio, with varied projects as to

maximize his insight within several industries and through different types of

projects. Mentors themselves also argue that by sharing their knowledge andexperience, they develop themselves in turns of evolving leadership abilities.

Constraints

Despite the positive aspects mentioned by all three levels in both France and

Norway, negative aspects were revealed as well, although mostly identified by

seniors and newly employed in Norway. Mainly this concerns the issue of

availability, but also regarding the issue of being “lucky”. Some pinpointed thatthe personality and willingness of the mentor to share knowledge and care for

their professionals, as being factors heavily influencing the effectiveness of the

mentors, hence influencing the potential for the professionals CD. In a few cases,

newly employed in both countries stated that they did not take advantage of the

mentoring systems due to poor personality matches between themselves and the

mentor, and partially also due the feeling of bothering their mentors when asking

questions or requesting assistance in different situations. Even though the

professionals were allowed to request a different mentor, we got the impression

that they did not dare to do so, as this was perceived as a negative signal to send.

The issue of the professionals’ perceptions of bothering the mentor could be

explained by the fact that the time spent on mentoring juniors do not count as

billable hours (Maister, 1993). A senior consultant in France stated that he could

acknowledge this problem, linking it to a matter of heavy workloads and time

constraints. He was a mentor for a subordinate himself and stated that: It is not

ideal, because you tend to lose a lot of time, and you will not be patient enough to

invest sufficient time and energy into the recruits´ trial-error approach. He

Page 62





thereafter stated that this was a problem both for the general CD, of both the

mentor and the professional. Mentoring is a time consuming activity, as stated by

Maister (1993). Our remark is that the systems clearly are well intended, however

lack of interaction not only has a negative impact on the usefulness of the

systems, but definitely also for the parties involved as low interaction hinders

fruitful relationships. Reimers (2011) argued that a large part of the success of a

mentoring relationship lies in the trust that evolves over time through informal

and regular contact. We will deal with the issues of trust and interaction more

carefully at later stages of the chapter.

It seems as for the mentor and support systems to function optimally, there is aneed of lowering the barriers for a potential switch of mentors. A senior

consultant in France suggested that one might impose mandatory switches after a

certain period of time. However, in the cases where the professionals are content

with their mentor, and have identified them as a crucial part in their development,

a switch can again foster stagnation, which could have been prevented if there was

no mandatory switch. The argument for establishing long-term relationships

would be that it allows the professional to learn thoroughly from one master.

Regarding availability, the mentors in most cases were situated at the same

location as the assigned professional, however a only few newly employed in

France and Norway identified lack of availability as a major constraint. A senior

consultant in Norway mentioned that this was due to the lack of follow-up

systems or procedures that ensures that the professionals receive the support they

are entitled to, possibly resulting in the professionals not reaching their CD goals.

He further stated that it is then the professional’s responsibility themselves to

initiate changes. Our reflection on the fact that it is up to the professional to

initiate, as they initially are supposed to jointly develop with help from mentors,

lead us in the direction that some professionals might feel left on their own. A few

of our respondents on newly employed level indicated this, in both countries.

However, this especially seemed to be the problem in France where signs of

hierarchy and barriers between levels seemed more evident. A newly employed in

France stated in relations to this: I have never asked a colleague on a partner

level a questions, and I probably never will . This illustrates our general perception

Page 63





of the culture for asking questions across levels in-, especially, French firms.

Without approachable mentors, the professionals within the lower levels of the

hierarchy might have few people to turn to within the company. This is, in turn,

unfortunate. As indicated by Maister (1993), mentoring is a tool intended to

develop tacit knowledge, and hence CD. However in order for this to function

effectively, face-to-face interaction is fundamental. Through our findings we can

support this statement.

When considering the type of competence that can be developed through mentor

and support systems, we identified these as socialization processes. Examples of

competences that can be developed through interactions with other people aremainly meta-competences, intra-organizational competences, industry

competences and unique competences. Within meta-competences, examples of

issues that the mentors can contribute to are the professionals’ capacity to tolerate

and master uncertainty through helping professionals becoming more confident in

their own decisions. Mentors can also contribute to professionals’ ability to

communicate and cooperate with others. Regarding intra-organizational

competences, the professionals can learn about colleagues, the elements of organizational culture, information channels and informal networks etc.

Concerning industry competence, an important generator of this competence is,

according to Nordhaug (1993), through other people with specialized competence

within the field, which we assume mentors in certain cases have. For unique

competences, mentoring processes can enhance understanding and CD on

operation of certain technologies and routines within the company, which may not

necessarily be provided through courses and training. We view these competences

to be important for all levels, however, industry competence is viewed as being

essential on the level of newly employed, as they may be new to the industry and

in need of quickly establishing an acceptable competence level in this area for

their further work.

When comparing the different cases, there are more similarities than differences,

as close to all respondents view mentor and support systems as positive and

highlight the same main contributors and constraints. So what happened to the

“fly solo” attitude that management consulting firms are recognized by? Due to

Page 64





the well-established up-our-out systems among PSFs and management consulting

firms, we would not have been surprised if this was discovered visible in our

findings. Rather, we found that partners and firms in general actively promoted

mentor systems as to help their aspiring professionals to survive. Indeed, seniors’

functioning as mentors have a challenging task in sharing their tacit insights and

knowledge with their receivers, but the intention in itself, is good. Nevertheless,

the mentor system is by us viewed as a “lifeline” for, especially, the young

professionals, where the mentors play a critical role in the transition from being a

rookie turning into a mature professional.

From the perspectives of the seniors and partners serving as mentors, our impression is that being a mentor is perceived as a complicated role, where

finding the right balance between teaching and coaching, pulling and pushing,

holding close and letting go, seems challenging (Ibarra, 2000). In statements from

respondents we also find support for these issues. In addition, as evident in our

findings, the professionals are forced to firstly serve their clients and secure

income, and hence the time available for mentoring, is reduced. Another

constraining element is the rather diffuse boundaries of the mentor role, where the professionals have no training in performing as mentors.

4.2.2 Courses and Training

Training, along with other developmental opportunities such as mentoring, was

found to be highly present in all the firms we studied. They heavily tend to rely on

seminars and courses to continuously develop and staying updated, and it is

through the formal training the professionals gain explicit knowledge (Hitt et al.,

2001). The firms could both internally and externally arrange these courses.

External courses were identified by most partners as being an opportunity that was

given to all of their professionals, however, in reality the case seemed to be quite

different. Many of the respondents on the two lower levels had never received the

opportunity of attending external courses, and some was not even aware of this

possibility. All of the companies had introductory courses and seminars primarily

focused on development of standard technical competence, ensuring an equal

skill- and competence level. All of the companies had annual mandatory training,

Page 65





to a large or less degree, some run courses in concentrated periods of time, others

had them spread out over longer periods – everything having its positive and

negative aspects. The mandatory courses and seminars were often partner

initiated, as all partner respondents referred to one of their responsibilities being

to help develop the knowledge of other professionals of the firm.

Contributors

In general, our findings indicate that courses and training is necessary and helpful

contributors to CD on all levels in both countries. When comparing, differences

could be found in why training was important, however these differences could

mainly be found across levels, and not borders. This was despite the fact that allrespondents agreed that CD through daily operations is far the most important and

helpful part. I believe that only 10% of my competence comes from courses,

whereas 90% comes from what I experience and what I do, this was stated by a

newly employed in Norway. Furthermore, many identified training and seminars

as helpful, but not necessarily due to the initially intended reasons. Some senior

consultants and partners in Norway stated that the most positive aspect about

training was that it served as a platform for network development: Connecting with- and getting to know your colleagues is essential, also this contributes to

another important notion, namely getting to know “who knows what”. This was

found to be vital by a senior consultant in Norway, since it is important to know

whom to contact when you need advice and/or help from more experienced

colleagues in e.g. new project issues. Quickly findings the “right” people was also

crucial in order for the company to put together the “best” team to be able to

deliver optimal service to clients. Further he stated that no system could compete

with this.

In addition to the formal courses, many of the companies had developed different

arrangements to contribute to the CD of their professionals through e.g. crash

courses, summer academies, monthly group discussions and more. One of the

partners in Norway expressed his satisfaction with the system of having crash

courses before new projects as it enhanced the likeliness for his superiors

developing an equal knowledge foundation. It would also reduce the number of

hours required to reading and self-studying outside the office. Furthermore, a

Page 66





newly employed in Norway expressed that she was very content with the firm

initiated monthly meetings. This system mainly aimed to gather a few people

from the same level once a month, to discuss a technical topic. The participation

was mandatory for every newly employed the first two years within the firm.

Practically the agenda included that two of the participants presenting a topic,

which further introduced a thorough technical group discussion. A superior or

subject matter expert, “SME”, was present to assist the participants in drawing the

correct conclusions, and supervising the sessions. The outcome was thereafter

logged in the company’s internal database. The summer academies, available for

professionals at all levels, was by a partner in Norway found to be a central

element in the professionals CD, as this was a perfect setting for getting to knowcolleagues and learn from their experiences. Another company had started having

one or two annual meetings with partners in sister companies abroad. Here they

discussed and shared what they viewed as effective training, and further shared

and reviewed domestic experiences on trainings and seminars. This was highly

appreciated among the partners as it opens for continuous updates of the training

repertoire and content, contributes to implementation of best practice training, and

hence potentially motivates the professionals to develop new competence. Also itfunctioned as a motivational factor for partners as they hereby have an arena for

discussing technical competence with people on the same level.

Even though most of the respondents viewed training as a contributor to CD, it

was difficult to determine to what extent. This was firstly because the internal

trainings seemed to differ in matters of content across borders. A senior consultant

in France identified this, and explained that this was due to different client

portfolios, market dynamics and potential differences within the same industries

across borders. These differences would consequently lead to differences in types

of trainings and methodologies needed. In practice this makes it hard to determine

to what extent training is contributing to CD, as different firms have different

ways of training their employees internally, and thereby the professionals do not

have the exact same perception of training.

Page 67





Constraints

During interviews, negative aspects of trainings were also revealed. The issues

repeated the most were down-prioritization, lack of external training, training

being provided at the wrong levels or inappropriate times of the year, and training

sessions being too general. All respondents in both countries recognized the down

-prioritization of training as a major constraint to CD. Courses and seminars

seemed forced down on third place in the firms prioritizing scale, after clients and

business development. This was supported my most respondents, and was due to

the time constraint and heavy work load as the clients comes first and now sets shorter deadlines than before it seems, as stated a senior in Norway. Another

Norwegian senior consultant further explained this by stating that the overall

problem is facilitating consultants’ availability to participate in necessary

trainings. This company has tried to plan the training well in advance in order to

improve the probability of consultants participating. However, the primary

mindset based on clients first and exceeding client satisfaction, complicates

training attendance. Despite the professionals’ awareness of this issue, manyrespondents in both countries agreed that courses offered after office hours,

reduced their motivation to participate. The issue of clients first has during our

interviews not only been expressed as a concern among newly employed and

seniors, but also by a Norwegian partner. He could acknowledge the frustration

that time pressure and heavy workload imposed, and that the clients first focus

resulted in difficulties in finding time to develop competence at firm level and

development of the firm in general: This was because you always needed to be

present and available for the client .

Regarding the issue of too general courses, not relevant to the professionals

specific field or level, a newly employed in Norway stated that sometimes it

seems that the courses are offered solely to ensure that the consultants possess the

skills that our employer is known for – and their reputation. There seems to be no

focus at all on my reputation as an individual consultant, or on what that could be

helpful for me, or the people within my team. Senior consultants in both France

and Norway further supported this and revealed that it sometimes seems like the

Page 68





company is forced to invest in courses, and hence blindly impose them as a matter

of duty. This consequently was found to result in irrelevant courses, not adjusted

to the different levels of expertise, or offered at inappropriate times and/or

periods. To our minds, this line of reasoning might also explain the limited access

to external courses, as most of the firms in our study only required mandatory

attendance on internal courses. That being said, we are certainly aware of other

explanatory elements defending the low degree of external courses – e.g. financial

considerations, logistical issues, and in-house, tailor made solutions, however we

will now look more into the issue of external training.

Regarding external training, most newly employed, however also seniorsexpressed dissatisfaction. The partners were found to be the most satisfied. Most

partners stated that they had European training sessions and meetings abroad

where knowledge was shared in various fields. By the newly employed and

seniors, however, it was stated during several interviews that when they first got

the chance to participate on external training sessions, their attendance was purely

for social reasons. A senior consultant in France stated European training is crap,

it’s too general, it’s about things you usually already know, and let’s be honest we all go there just to have a good time. He further said that since these seminars

were arranged once a year, the consequence was that the content was not updated

and/or specific enough, and thereby irrelevant for many. Also, the consultant

mentioned problematic aspects about the intercultural setting as matters such as

type of clients, and hereby the consultant-client interaction, differs between

countries. Another Norwegian senior consultant also expressed his concern about

the generalization of training, as he believed that the partners did not really

understand the negative effects. He said that too general courses and seminars led

to employees developing similar knowledge and competences, instead of

complementary competences. This could in turn lead to disasters for the

company’s value creation processes since the effects of the general training were

that the professionals were moving in the direction of becoming a more

homogeneous group. He further responded that a company needs expertise in

various disciplines to be chosen by clients. Also he said that many courses did not

contribute at all to his CD, closer to the opposite, as he rather would have spent

time on reading up on technical issues himself. One can argue that through

Page 69





creating a more homogenous group of individuals, trainings might actually serve

the opposite purpose of what the firms initially seek. They want their

professionals to have a variety of competences, possessing different kinds of

knowledge to create the most value in teams and thereby for the clients. If we turn

to Nordhaug (1993), he states that organizations embrace individuals who have

different types of competence. We then question if the type of training described

above, evening out the initial heterogeneity within the firms, reduces the firms’

chances of creating client value? We are only in a position to speculate, therefore

we will move on to the additional issues addressed under subject of external

training.

A newly employed in Norway speculated that external courses were offered in

periods when time pressure and high workload would make it almost impossible

for the consultants to participate. He suggested that it should be obvious for the

partners that participation would be close to impossible during these periods, and

low participation would further lead to cancellation of the courses. This however,

resulted in the company having, as he referred to it, a “clean conscience”

regarding fulfilling their “duty” of providing these courses, leaving no room for the professionals to complain about not being offered external courses. A partner

in Norway further argued the following regarding the lack external courses: There

is a huge lack of opportunities for the employees to go abroad if requested,

because our measurements made by the company indicates that the learning

curve and effects on CD is better when professionals gain experience by working

on projects, rather than being formally trained abroad or externally.

Several newly employed and senior consultants expressed the need for

explanations of the importance of-, and area of utilization of, the courses they

attend, as this would, as they expressed, contribute to the motivation for attending.

If you don’t know how you can use the information, you first of all won’t

remember it, and secondly you will never use it , a senior consultant in France

stressed. If the respondents will not utilize the knowledge, they do not get full

appreciation of the courses as this knowledge need to be put in context and

utilized for optimal CD.

Page 70





Regarding the quality of courses, most firms in this study have no post-course

evaluation. Partners hereby seldom receive feedback on the effectiveness of the

courses, content, relevance etc., and consequently miss out on valuable response

on the professionals learning outcome. Of course, the potential effect of the

courses can be seen in the professionals’ performance over time, however the

long-term effect does not seem to be measured or reviewed. As a French partner

said: they had forms that were given to the attendees right after the course to

receive feedback, but they had no long-term follow-up or measures capturing the

true effectiveness of the training. If this is the case, we believe partners loose

valuable information that may help them in improving training sessions. Also,

without proper measurement systems they can neither measure to what extent theaccumulated knowledge is utilized in daily operations. However, to be able to do

so, partners must acknowledge the explicit need for identifying how and why the

different kinds of training are important, so that the professionals get to optimize

the use of knowledge gained through training. We believe that mandatory

evaluations after training sessions in itself not are an adequate measurement. To

some extent it may also loose its meaning and/or reveal inaccurate results if the

respondents not fully understand the reason and goal with the training in the first place. This is because, in this case, that the professionals cannot say anything

about how they will apply the knowledge in the future; in what areas, how, and to

what extent.

We do see that when comparing cases, the perception of training contributing to

CD, is similar among our respondents. However in what way it contributes,

differs across levels. Different types of competences seem to be developed at

different levels. For newly employed meta-competences, industry competences

and standard technical competences, are the main competences developed. On a

senior and partner level, intra-organizational competences were developed - more

specifically; knowledge about colleagues was highlighted as important. However,

several of the senior respondents clearly stated that it was not only knowledge

about colleagues within the firm that was of importance, but colleagues across

borders. Thereby intra-organizational is not fully covering the types of

competences developed.

Page 71





To comment on the overall findings on the issues of training, we were very well

aware of the respondents being highly educated, highly committed to their work

and in general seemingly satisfied with their status as a consultant. We expected

that the firms under investigation would be “good” at training their professionals,

as the essence of a consultancy firms’ work is to teach others how to do things

differently. So did the findings support our expectations? To a certain degree,

absolutely – the firms’ initial attitude towards learning appeared sincere and

positive. However with time constraints, high workload, indications of too general

courses, and lack of external training and clear training outcomes, the

professionals’ motivation for participating in trainings seemed blunt.

4.2.3 Evaluations and Measurement

Regarding the evaluations and measurement of the professionals, their work

progress and CD - several findings became evident. The main reasons for

measuring and evaluating the professionals were many, e.g. to ensure optimal CD,

create benchmarks for career development and promotion, and long-term profit.

Evaluations and feedback in itself was not found to influence CD directly,

however we choose to include this discussion, as it seems to influence CD

indirectly. In most cases, the evaluations appeared to serve a functional role as

accelerators of processes of CD. These issues will now be more closely

exemplified and discussed.

Contributors

For most respondents in both countries, evaluations and feedback functioned as a

motivation, which in turn, indirectly influenced CD. Most of our respondents said

that they highly appreciated the specific feedback given. This was identified as

factors contributing to the professionals’ willingness to continuously develop, as

they knew how and where to invest their time for improving effectively. Also, the

fact that their work was acknowledged through evaluations and feedback

functions, served as a motivational factor. In some firms, evaluations were

mandatory after each project, or each season (four times a year), whereas some

only once a year. In other firms, it seemed not to be mandatory, but was

implemented in the company culture and norms. As a Norwegian partner stated:

Page 72





no one will hit you in the head if you’re not providing the evaluations, however

we have a culture for giving our consultants feedback in their everyday work, and

I believe most of our consultants get the feedback they need from their supervisors

through their continuous performance. Within a few firms, the professionals

themselves could request certain fields of which they were to be evaluated on,

whereas in others the scales/areas of measurements were fixed, some also applied

a mix of the two. Furthermore, in some cases, the firms used a few scales or areas,

whereas others had numerous parameters to be measured on. In general, the areas

of measurement after projects, varied, however most firms evaluated technical

skills, some also measured consulting skills- referring to e.g. communication

abilities, problem solving abilities, project management skills and their ability toensure positive client-consultant relationships. Additionally, in some firms, the

professionals could choose to be evaluated by his/hers superior (upwards), by

colleagues (sideways) or by people on lower levels (downwards). The Norwegian

partner who shared this information, found this solution to enable a more varied

evaluation, including different perspectives of the firm, as people on different

levels have different focus. A newly employed acknowledged that sideways

evaluations were more relevant in terms of receiving soft skills evaluations, as thecolleagues who evaluated him based it on daily interaction. The downward

evaluation, on the other hand, was more hard skills focused, where he was

evaluated on his standard technical competence.

Through measurements and evaluation of their employees, a Norwegian partner

said that CD was “systematized”: Through these evaluations one can clearly see

if the goals of each individual are reached or not . As CD is an essential criterion

for further promotion within the firm, which further is linked a company’s’ long-

term profit, consultants’ competence level is measured and rated internally. In this

firm, the clients also rated the competence level, however this was far from the

case within all our firms. An unexpected findings to us, was that in the cases

where the senior consultant/team leader received client evaluation on the

consultancy team, these evaluations were not brought on to the professionals

themselves. We found this surprising, as we believe client feedback could be an

essential element to be incorporated in evaluations. As we see it, client

evaluations would be potentially less subjective as the evaluations are stripped

Page 73





from personal relationships bias. Perhaps this could increase fairness in terms of

introducing more objective viewpoints where consultants are evaluated in a

natural setting?

The high appreciation of evaluation amongst the respondents indicates that the

people we met with were highly motivated individuals, wanting to perform well

and highly committed to their jobs. These findings are in accordance with our

expectations formed by reviewing PSFs and the management consulting industry,

where the individuals were characterized as highly skilled and self-driven

individuals.

Constraints

Concerning the negative aspects, two constraints were identified as more evident

and predominant: The evaluations were found to be down prioritized and too

subjective. The main constraint that was clearly identified by most respondents in

France on the two lower levels was the down-prioritization of feedback and

evaluations. Even though it seemed evident that evaluations were intended to be

given after each project, the evaluations were conducted late (from six months toone year post project) or even, in some cases, never conducted at all. A French

partner stated her concern regarding the late evaluations: If the evaluations are

not given at the right time, they are meaningless. Both parties might forget details

that may be crucial for the individuals’ and their CD, as well as the firms CD. We

found it interesting to note, that this respondent also had long experience serving

as an HR manager. Another French partner supported that postponed evaluations

would clearly lead to inaccurate feedback due to memory issues. He further

stated: After the evaluations you usually have 10% of the consultants performing

very well, and 10% who have performed not up to mark. The 80 % of the people

in the middle are difficult to classify and differentiate between. Sometimes we are

not able to explain why some of them are put before others. In these cases, we

argue that the professionals “in the middle” becomes a part of the large “grey

crowd” of the firm, not being acknowledged, seen, hence possibly loosing

motivation.

The second major constraint to CD regarding evaluation systems is the fact that

Page 74





the measurements are perceived too subjective. As colleagues make the

evaluations the personal relationship will naturally affect the results, in both

positive and negative ways, depending on the relationship. A French senior

consultant stated: my partner, who knows me and trusts me, always gives me great

feedback, even though I know that I could have performed better . He expressed

his concerns, as he perceived the feedback system as confusing. He rarely

received instructions on where and how to improve. Thereby for him, the

evaluations served in almost opposite purpose of being a contributing factor of

development.

In order to become successful and of value to the company, you need to grow and learn on a continuous basis, a French partner stated. Several of the respondents on

partner level in both countries, acknowledged the positive effects these systems

might have if applied properly. Therefore, our findings suggesting that evaluations

are down prioritized, is surprising. Again, we believe that this is due to the high

time pressure, since the respondents seem to be aware of the benefits in the first

place. We believe that by delaying the feedback, insecurity among the

professionals might arise, as they “risk” not being credited for their work, and/or are not provided directions for further improvement. According to Bridgespan

(2003) the situations that originally could be viewed as minor glitches, could

develop into becoming a serious problem, and we hereby pose our concerns about

the utilization issues described above.

Regarding types of competences, it is here difficult to identify since evaluations

and measurements are viewed as having an indirect effect on CD. Respondents

themselves highlighted these systems as having positive and negative effects on

CD, however what type of competence they developed based on the evaluations

and measurements are hard for us to determine. During our interviews the

respondents gave examples on what they had to further develop, for example

analytical skills, which can be found within meta-competences. However, several

examples were given that was found within most competence categories and so

identifying those are here seen as neither necessary nor appropriate.

Page 75





As a general remark to our observations and findings with regards to evaluation

and measurement, our initial belief was that the respondents would appear eager

to continuous improve themselves, as our perception is that these individuals are

career driven, committed and highly motivated. To a certain degree we are left

with the impression that this definitely was the case among most respondents.

They are highly concerned about performing well, and also highly focused on

receiving feedback and evaluations “proving” their success. Through our

interviews, however, concerns arose due to professionals feeling evaluated

subjectively, and/or often a long time after ended projects – leaving them with

inaccurate evaluations. The problem of subjective evaluations seemed to be even

more predominant in France. The Norwegians also acknowledged this problemhowever seemed to have applied a “laissez faire” attitude, more settled with the

issues concerning e.g. subjectiveness.

As consultants can be characterized as having an unrealistically high ideal of

performance (Argyris, 1991), inaccurate evaluations and a sense of wrongness in

the way that evaluations are conducted might nurture defensive attitudes among

the professionals. This can spread out in the organization, and this would beextremely unfortunate, as we see it. Another side of this, is that the evaluations

might cause the individuals turning overly obsessed with achieving within the

parameters of the evaluations, causing them to blindly focus on themselves and

their performance, worried about “not making it”, and trying to hide CD

shortcomings from his peers and subordinates. Consequently, the effect of this is

less openness and conceited personalities (Bauman, 2003), fostering

individualistic behavior instead of collectivistic values. Through literature

presented in earlier chapters wee find it evident that this would be extremely

unfortunate for companies in general.

4.2.4 Technical Tools

Hansen and Haas (2001) suggested that explicit and tacit knowledge are

complementary within a firm. Our findings have provided us with an idea of the

different mechanisms implemented in the firms, aimed to facilitate knowledge

Page 76





sharing at organizational level. These are tools that help articulate the competence

ingrained in the brains of the firms members (Hansen & Haas, 2001). This section

of our thesis will introduce the technical tools implemented to store competence at

firm level. More specifically we will address the information

databases/knowledge pools available within the firms, containing e.g.

professionals CV’s, templates, methodologies, and best practice examples. Our

findings indicate that they serve as both contributors and constraints to CD, and

that the technical tools put in place in order to store competence are applied quite

differently in the respective firms.

ContributorsThe technological tools functions as contributors mainly with regards to

individual CD, as they enable professionals having quick and permanent access to

knowledge. The systems contain brief summaries where e.g. the subject at matter

is addressed, the methodology described, and the results presented. Many newly

employed, especially in Norway, stated that the systems provide background info

important for the self-studying process pre-projects, and also security in terms of

knowing that information is available. These findings are in line with researchsuggesting that KM, and hence CD, enhances as technological tools extends the

reach and speed of knowledge transfer (Rasli, Madjid & Asmi, 2004). In general,

the technical tools invested in seemed to be more positively viewed by the

partners and newly employed. According to a French partner, the technical tools

contribute to developing internal intellectual capital within the firm. It was

identified as being helpful when working on new projects, as the professionals

could turn to databases to review what previous consultants had done before.

Amongst partners in both countries, the database was referred to as enabling a

more effective communication and collaboration amongst the professionals. This

was because they could refer to templates and methods broadly addressed in the

databases, which the professionals would more quickly grasp as they all had

access to the same knowledge. A partner stated that the methods referred to in the

databases provide us with a common language. I want communication to flow

effectively, so when I talk about a specific process model that is widely covered in

our databases, people will immediately recognize what I am referring to.

Furthermore, a Norwegian partner stated that they also stress the positive and

Page 77





negative aspects of solutions previously developed, as to ensure improvement and

enhancement in the future. By having the descriptions of the different solutions

stored they could easily go back and review outcomes, detecting shortcomings.

One might presume that one of the reasons for partners viewing the tools so

positively is because they are the ones who have initiated and invested in the

systems. The systems are according to a Norwegian partner very costly, however,

if they function well, it allows information to be reused and consequently enable

cost reduction in the long run. Though partners in both countries did acknowledge

that the systems were not flawless, they viewed them as enablers of quicker

communication, and hence quicker knowledge sharing and consequently CD. Wewill now present the areas where our findings have suggested that the tools have

weaknesses.

Constraints

The central value building activity around information is managing and

structuring the content as to make information easy to find, enable reuse, learningfrom previous experiences and reducing the amount of work being duplicated

(Rasli, Madjid & Asmi, 2004). After comparing across levels and countries, we

found that the main constraint of CD with technical tools was that the IT systems

were extremely difficult, and time consuming to navigate in. The scope of data

was huge and the professionals seemed to get lost the “ocean” of data. This was

especially the case if you did not know exactly what you are looking for, or if you

did not have the correct key words to use in your search. A senior consultant in

Norway made a comment: I would never start searching if I did not know exactly

what I was looking for. I would need a clear purpose. Several respondents on all

three levels, in both countries, identified the utilization issue. This seemed in the

extreme cases to lead to less usage, or even no usage, and this was the case for

both the general databases as well as the CV databases. A senior consultant in

Norway stated: I do not even to spend my time on these systems I rather use

Google. As we see it, the problems with navigating could partially relate to lack of

experience to proper utilize the system, and partially personal preferences as

people use different means in their search for information. It could moreover also

Page 78





reflect the inherent challenges of capturing tacit knowledge in written form. It is

impossible to fully transfer the “whole” picture, and hence professionals may

quite frankly be disappointed about the blunted written version they find in the

databases.

Second to the most constraining factor, was the fact that the systems were time

consuming to maintain. Many respondents, on all levels, in both countries,

identified this constraint. Most of the companies had a CV database aimed at

capturing the overall competence the professionals were in possession of. The CV

databases were argued to contribute to an overview of who knows what within the

company, which is important in terms of knowing whom to approach when e.g.composing teams for certain projects. Also this was identified as helpful for

improved utilization of competence at company level. However major concerns

were identified. The professionals seemed not to have incentives or uniform

standards for updating their CV databases. A French partner said that people are

not updating their CV’s, and one never has the full overview over who knows

what . A Norwegian partner, who was completely aware of these problems, and in

search of a better way to gain overview, further supported this. He realized that far from the company’s full potential was utilized due to this: If only we knew what

our company knows. Another Norwegian partner stated that the system is far from

optimal and it can take days to find the right people. The system needs to be

upgraded, as well as the routines and the incentives to continually update the

database. This then becomes a challenge as Nordhaug (1993) stated when he

addressed the problem of not having an overview of the available competences in

the firm. A completion of the competence chain cannot be obtained, as the last

stage, namely competence utilization, cannot fully be set forth or be optimized. A

French partner openly shared that they did not have these kinds of systems at all

due to the maintenance challenges. Instead they had a planning manager in each

business unit, responsible for identifying e.g. people’s skills, language skills and

experience – a solution that seemed to function better than the CV databases in

this case. A Norwegian partner also suggested, independently of the other partner,

that they were considering such a system. He clearly could see the advantages of

not spending time on updating and/or finding the right incentives for his

Page 79





professionals to update themselves, but rather delegate the responsibility to

someone else.

An additional constraining element regarding the time consuming maintenance

was addressed among seniors and partners in both countries. The most important

reason for the updates being time consuming was that a lot of the information the

consultants dealt with, was tacit, and therefore extremely hard to convey in a

written format (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999). As a French partner stated:

many of these systems work on paper, but not in reality. Professionals on senior

and partner levels argued that they rather would spend their time gaining new

knowledge from other sources than the databases, as this often proved moreefficient. The reasons mentioned was that it mainly was less time consuming, and

that the information they gained often was more up to date, compared to reusing

of old information and/or solutions.

A third constraint identified was that a majority of the communication between

HQs in country of origin and international divisions was in English. To us, this

was rather obvious finding, and we could not find any noteworthy problems withinformation stored in English among the respondents. The issues rather arose

when back-translating information from the knowledge systems into domestic

languages. Respondents shared issues concerning interpretation, and thereby

appropriate use and application of knowledge. One of the problems regarding the

experience libraries, frequently mentioned among our respondents, was that one is

never confronted with the exact same problem definition in the exact same

context. In other words, the reports could never be fully reused. Hence, the

translation problem further complicates the already existing de-contextualization

problem. Furthermore, regarding the issue of context and reuse of stored

information, several of the professionals, and especially partners, identified this as

a problem. In our view, this can be attributed to application of knowledge

requiring a “knowing subject” who can translate the knowledge in order to fully

grasp the content and its application value (Czarniawska & Joerges, 1996). This

suggests that especially newly employed with limited experience might

experience challenges. Despite recognizing the weaknesses of this system it was

Page 80





not identified as a constraint to CD, as it may benefit the newly employed in their

learning curve.

Based on statements from a few consultants in France early in our interview

process, it became evident that they simply did not update the databases. As we

approached completion of our interview process, we gained a fuller picture

indicating that the information in the databases was in fact not being updated

continuously at all in certain companies in France. The result of this was that our

French respondents actually not were able to find information from projects

conducted in France, only information from international projects. We find the

following statement, made by a senior consultant in France as rather extraordinary: In France we do not want to share, especially not with people we

don’t know. He mentioned that the extremely problematic side of this was that if

the individuals not actively sought for information and updates elsewhere, they

would not be sufficiently updated in general. In relations to this, the French

professionals neither seemed to take advantage of other countries’ project reports,

due to the unfamiliarity with the sender. Nevertheless, central to the

transformation from individual knowledge turning collective, the individuals needto share, and therefore the sharing issues identified above are highly unfortunate.

So what can be done about this problem? According to the same senior

professional it is the people that need to change, not the systems. The sharing and

storing needs to be anchored in the mentality of people, and the company culture

through the support of the top management, for sharing knowledge to become a

part of everyday life. The top managers must signalize and state examples. This

can also be supported by literature. Ragsdell (2009) stated that enhancers and

inhibitors to sharing knowledge can be found within top management support, top

management commitment, a culture that enables knowledge sharing and trust,

appropriate technology to facilitate sharing, and internal knowledge sharing.

A French partner also stated that low degree of sharing through IT systems has

become a problem. He questioned if the French people were “lazier” than others,

however he also acknowledged that the time pressure was the main reason for

limited sharing. Despite some of the partners being aware of the problems, it

might seem as though they are not aware of how little the systems actually are

Page 81





used. We were a bit amazed by the fact that it seemed as none of the firms in our

study had proper measures aiming to track to what extent the systems were used.

We believe that by generating data on this, firms might gain a clearer view on

where money is well spent and where great improvements, or even removals of

certain systems, are beneficial.

We believe it is not relevant to discuss the fact that there seem to be more

constraints than contributors in the case of technical tools, however one should

rather view the relative strength of them. We are not in a position to do so

therefore we cannot state to what extent we feel that the tools are constraining

more than facilitating. What we can state is that major problems have beenidentified, that indicate a need for improvement in order for the tools to become

more meaningful means of CD. Hansen, Nohria & Tierney (1999) suggest that it

is important to make a choice between following a codification strategy or a

personalization strategy, where one of them can have a supportive role. It seems

as though the companies have chosen a personalization strategy by depending

more on interactions rather than a codification (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999).

Our findings indicate that technical tools are functioning as supportive elements inthe professionals CD.

Regarding types of competences developed, technical tools may both contribute

to- and constrain CD. The main type of competence that could be developed is

standard technical competence of which Nordhaug (1993) states could be

developed through education, training, hence also by self-studying through

information found in technical tools. We, however think that it may also generate

industry competence, and knowledge about the industry. Nordhaug (1993) on the

other hand states that industry competence mainly can be developed through

working within an industry, talking to industry experts or by joining industry

associations’ meetings and seminars. From our point of view, we also identify

self-studying as a generator of industry competence, just as we gained insight into

the consulting industry through doing research ourselves.

We have found, in accordance with previous literature (e.g. Itami, 1987;

Fosstenløkken, 2007) that investments made by the firm is an important route to

Page 82





CD. The knowledge “banks” identified within the firms under investigation

enable each individual consultant to access a broad variety of knowledge and

information, containing search engines that allows them to find specific project or

problems related to present work tasks. The aim is that these systems contribute to

the creation of organizational competence, as well as professionals CD. All firms

within our study are large companies, and hence the volume of data is huge. As an

overall remark we can conclude with findings indicating that technology is an

important component in the professionals CD, whereas IT, in theory, provides the

foundation for automating and centralizing the CD, use, deployment and sharing

of knowledge. Technical tools are enforced to enhance and enable companies’

knowledge generation and codification, however we have found that certaincultural barriers exist, constraining full utilization. As suggested by Rasli, Madjid

& Asmi (2004), the organizations need to overcome these barriers by nurturing an

atmosphere where knowledge and innovation is valued.

On a more general note, our findings are in accordance with Løwendahl (2009)

and Nordhaug (1993) pointing to a major challenges within especially knowledge-

based organizations: the firms have no overview of the competence potentiallyavailable for value creation. This introduces another issue, namely not addressing

latent competence within the organization (Løwendahl & Nordhaug, 1994).

Hereby the firm is likely to under-utilize competence, due to ignorance on the

company’s behalf and/or reluctance from the employees to sharing their

competence. It is the interplay and interaction between technology, techniques,

and professionals that allow an organization to manage its knowledge successfully

(Bhatt, 2001).

In answer to the second research sub question, all three levels in both countries

rely on a mix of internal training, mentoring systems, evaluation systems and

technical tools to develop their competence. IT tools are recognized as one of the

central factors for effective KM (Sarvary, 1999; Choi, 2000). However, through

these investments also major constraints to CD could be found. From the cross-

case analysis a surprising finding was that what the professionals view as

contributors and constraints to CD is more similar than different.

Page 83





The model on the next page serves as a summary of the main contributors and

constraints to CD through investments. Findings related to France and/or Norway

are indicated with F and/or N, where F and N are not specified, findings concerns

respondents in both countries.

CD through investments: Contributors ConstraintsMentor Programs and

Support Systems

- Contributes to career

development (Most)

- Enables variety in projects

(All)

- Discussions on technical

matters (NE)

- Mentors functions as role

models and motivators (NE)

- Lack of availability of

mentors (NE)

- Difficult to switch mentors

(NE)

- Heavy workloads hinders

optimal mentoring (NE + S)

Courses and Training - Contributes to network

building and knowledge

about colleagues (All)

- Contributes to several types

of competences: meta,

industry, intra-organizational

and standard technical

competence (All)

- Down-prioritized (NE + S)

- Time pressure hinders

ability to participate (All)

- Courses after office

hours/busy periods reduce

motivation to participate (NE

+ S)

- Restricted access to external

courses (NE + S)

- Too general trainings (NE +

S)

- Not adapted to levels of the

professionals (NE + S)

Evaluations and

Measurement

- Specific feedback on areas

of improvement functions as

a motivation to improve(Most NE, F)

- Down-prioritized (delayed

or not given at all) (Most)

- Subjectivity (All, especiallyin F)

- Not detailed enough (NE +

S)

- Dishonesty, and

preoccupation with individual

performance (NE, especially

in F)

Technical Tools - Availability of information

serves as a safety net (NE)

- More effective

communication (P)

- Navigation problems and

time consuming (All)

- Maintenance is time

consuming (All)

- De-contextualization (Most)

Page 84





Figure 9: Summary of CD through investments.

Next, CD through daily operations will be addressed.

4.3. CD Through Daily Operations

(iii) What are the main contributors and constraints of the professionals’

competence development through daily operations?

Our findings suggest that the overall most important ground for CD is ‘daily

operations’. This is in line with Itami (1987) stressing the importance of learning

through daily operations in CD, stating that ‘the “learning by doing” effect

enables the firm to accumulate the necessary invisible assets to carry out future

strategy in the course of its everyday operations’ (Itami, 1987:161). The main

contributors to CD through daily operations were found to be learning from

others, and learning by doing. Our main constraints were found to be high pressure, and low willingness to share knowledge. Compared to Fosstenløkken’s

(2007) results, she also found daily operations to be the most important CD arena,

where learning by doing in project work for clients was the primary facilitator of

CD, and time pressure the main constraint.

4.3.1 Learning by Doing

After comparing the different cases we found that all respondents, in both

countries, pointed to learning by doing in project work as the main contributor to

CD, and learning. Both when working alone and together with colleagues this

experience and hands on learning was identified as crucial to CD. In other words,

our findings suggest that the overall similarity in CD in daily operations is that the

professionals learn from both individual experiences (e.g. Kolb, 1984) and from

collective social interactions (e.g. Lave & Wenger, 1991). In addition to these

general similarities, we have observed differences and distinctions between the

three levels of professionals. Most of the newly employed highlighted the

Page 85





importance of working with more experienced professionals in their daily work.

For the senior professionals, they found great value in guiding the less

experienced as well as working with client responsibles. A senior consultant in

Norway stated 99% of his learning comes from informal learning in everyday

work. Further, as emphasized by all respondents, the learning output will differ

due to project role, -phase and –size. Most partners pinpointed the fact that the

daily operations can be viewed as a socialization process, where the professionals

gain understanding of their individual roles within the organization (Kaiser &

Ringlstetter, 2011). The socialization process is closely connected to corporate

culture that establishes values and norms for knowledge sharing and interaction,

as mentioned in the previous section concerning national culture (Kaiser &Ringlstetter, 2011). The findings support the notion of the companies exercising a

personalization strategy, as described in ‘Knowledge Management and Methods

of Knowledge Transfer’.

On the other hand, most respondents bring forth high time pressure, repetitively

similar projects and team composition as constraints to CD. For the further

discussion of these issues we find is suitable to deal with these separately.

High Pressure

Almost all French and Norwegian respondents emphasized the high workload and

pressure of their job as a major constraint to CD. As indicated by Maister (1993),

time represents a scarce resource in PSFs. ‘Many PSF projects are characterized

by time pressure towards deadlines and also face heavy cost pressure’

(Kvålshaugen et al., 2006:6). The professionals are expected to dedicate

‘enormous working hours, highest flexibility and constant employee motivation’

(Kaiser & Ringlstetter, 2011:117). The high pressure introduces several

challenges and we will deal with some of the most profound issues from our

findings in this section. Firstly, our findings suggest that pressurized and rushed

professionals do not have the time to engage in the interaction needed to develop

the sometimes necessary competence on both an individual and collective level.

As suggested by Hitt el al. (2001), complex forms of knowledge require face-to-

face interaction between partners and associates. Several statements from our

respondents indicate a certain lack of interaction within the firms, but there are

Page 86





between country differences in this case. Within the firms in both countries, the

professionals acknowledge the challenges created by pressure, but in comparison

we found more indicators negatively affecting the interaction, in general, in

France compared to Norway. To illustrate this we are hereby presenting some

examples: A French senior stated that everybody is experiencing a high workload

and pressure, hence everybody will not be willing to devote time to assist co-

workers. Almost no degree of interaction is found between juniors and partners,

and from what I have seen in France there is a more formal separation between

the different levels. There is some kind of natural hierarchy here, and more so

than in other countries. When talking to a partner you weigh your words

carefully. Further, he added that figuring out the informal rules of the company isan especially difficult task in the early phases within the firm. He experienced that

the availability of partners was close to non-existent with regards to approaching

them asking questions. On the question of why this could be, he stated that they

seemed occupied with impressing and maintaining authority by being less

approachable. Another explanatory element mentioned was also that the partners

seemed to not have the time to spend on being approached by subordinates, nor

being willing to devote it: They do not have time and do not want to take the time. I think that this is a French phenomenon. Partners and seniors not being available

was a surprising finding due to literature suggesting the importance of interaction

in the aim of knowledge sharing at organizational level. This findings were not in

line with previous literature such as Senge (1996) stating that the traditional role

of managers being “bosses” are moving towards managers turning into teachers,

with primarily concerns of supporting organizational knowledge development and

learning. Senge (1996) also stressed that the very key in establishing a learning

organization was by ensuring mixtures of people from all levels in the

organization, and not through traditional hierarchies.

As we see it, an additional explanation to the availability issue may be found in

the companies’ responsibility to nurture networks, more specifically client

relationships. As the companies under investigation are highly dependent on their

client portfolio, the client themselves will often also expect to have a personal

interactive relationship with the consulting firm, next to achieving good results

(Czerniawska, 2007). Establishing and maintaining these types of relationship

Page 87





seems as a primary responsibility at the higher levels of the firm (seniors and

partner), hence also occupying a lot of their time.

On one of our questions regarding culture for asking questions within the

company, a French partner suggested that the size of the Paris office in itself was

a huge barrier for managing people and developing “fair” relationships: the ability

to coach them properly, to know them and to be sure that the people discover all

the opportunities within the company is a complex task within a firm having

several hundred partners and several thousand employees. This company had

dealt with the size issue by dividing the firm into smaller business units to better

facilitate interaction and create a sense of belonging and attachment. Another partner stated that people quit if they do not develop a fruitful dialogue and

relationship with their colleagues and superiors. We feel that this exemplifies the

importance of internal company interaction. We find it natural to link these

findings to statements found on issues concerning evaluation and measurement,

presented in the previous chapter. To our minds, the size and barriers for

interaction illustrated here, further illuminates the difficulties of providing good

evaluations within the firms. How can superiors possibly establish a thorough base for evaluation if his superiors are spread out over large firm-internal

distances? We find the initiative of dividing the company into smaller divisions as

fruitful in terms of facilitating closer relationships, more interaction and

potentially also more accurate evaluations.

On a more general note, our perception is that the organizational hierarchy is to a

larger degree present in France, compared to Norway. Consultants at newly

employed level in France, experience the hierarchy as very strong and stated in

interviews that they have little contact with partners, feel small compared to them,

and that they do not know what they are doing. Our overall impression was that

the professionals’ title was perceived as reliable indicators of competence, and

that the French consultants seemed to have great respect for-, and compliance

with, formal hierarchy (Alvesson, 2002). When including cultural aspects, we find

additional explanations for our findings on hierarchy by turning to Mole (2001).

Mole (2001) argues that French companies, in general, are highly centralized.

Further, he suggests that French managers rarely open their mind, and even less

Page 88





their heart, to their subordinates. These descriptions can provide some explanatory

value concerning the rather low degree of between-layers interaction found in

France.

As introduced in chapter two, the newly employed professionals experience a

steep learning curve during the early stages of their careers, and most of the

respondents at this level mentioned high time pressure as a constraint to their CD.

For the senior professionals, spending time on guiding less experienced

professionals was by a few stated to reduce their speed and general work

efficiency, and hence personal CD. A partner in Norway further illustrated this by

saying that keeping a focus on delivering to clients, developing my employees,and at the same time trying to develop our business is something I find close to

impossible. Consequently something has to be down prioritized. Sometimes, sadly

enough, that down-prioritization falls on development of my employees.

Repetitively Similar Projects

Repetitively similar projects were identified by some of the respondents as a

constraint to CD. For the firm, engaging in similar or repetitive projects will bemore cost-effective as the expertise, knowledge and basic methods already

developed can be capitalized all over again. From the professionals’ view, this is

seen quite differently. Exciting, new and challenging assignments are vital to their

motivation and CD development. Many respondents on all three levels, in both

countries, stated this. Quinn, Anderson and Finkelstein (1996) stated that intensity

and repetition of information and tasks are proved to be critical to the

development of advanced skills. People with such intensive experiences increase

their competence and value within the firm. If these people are provided with

growth opportunities through continuously heightened complexity, coaching and

mentoring, and strong incentives to further engage, this will be a facilitator for

success for the professionals. Vise versa, these people will be less satisfied if they

experience a mismatch between the tasks they are given and their competence

level. As identified, challenging and exciting tasks are crucial for the

professionals’ development of CD. However, as stated by a majority of newly

employed in both countries, certain projects require that the people involved have

experience in specific fields. Consequently, many newly employed and even

Page 89





seniors do not receive the opportunity to participate in these projects, even though

it is in line with the personal development plan often created together with their

mentors. This, in turn, have sometimes led to professionals being put on the same

type of projects over again. In extreme cases, if the professionals are in possession

of ‘unique competences’ (Nordhaug, 1993), they are put on the same types of

projects over and over again, since s/he cannot easily be substituted. Many

realized that this was a natural consequence of the, among other issues,

hierarchical structure of the companies; nonetheless they were frustrated about

this issue. As a Norwegian partner stated: We mustn’t forget that we are running a

business here. Furthermore, a newly employed in Norway stated that junior co-

workers are given too little responsibility in projects. Also, most of therespondents in our study points to exhaustion to be a problem if they are pushed

too far. A Norwegian senior said that: If you are not able to develop and ensure a

continuously updated personal knowledge- and skills base, you will not be

delegated to the most prestigious projects. Staying updated is required, and there

is no time during work hours to ensure this. Our findings imply that a few of the

newly employed are not exposed to the professional challenges they need to

steadily develop. This is problematic as lack of diversity in projects cause the professionals to not get sufficient practice in crucial methodologies and skills. A

French partner illustrated this by stating that it is a potential problem if new

knowledge cannot be practiced in relevant projects afterwards. The acquired

knowledge will be forgotten more easily. As stated above however, the natural

consequence of the hierarchical organizational form of consulting firms is that the

majority of the “doing” will be conducted at the lower levels. A Norwegian

partner commented on this, stating that: A general remark would be that the lower

in the hierarchy, the less exciting tasks. However, mastering these tasks is

fundamental and necessary in order to fulfill the requirements for enhanced

positions later on.

Team Composition and Underdelegation Problems

Most respondents mentioned team composition as a crucial determinant for their

CD. Especially the newly employed, in both countries, viewed their project teams

as a highly determining CD factor. Among these respondents, most of them

characterized their company as somewhat impersonal and many of them indicated

Page 90





that they felt-, or previously had felt, a sense of alienation within the large

corporate system. Conversely, when working in teams they indicated that they

developed close and personal relationships with co-workers, and these social

relations were identified as central CD contributors. Naturally, a consultant would

wish for getting to be a part of the “best” team, however due to logistical issues,

composing the optimal teams at all times is not possible. As stated by a French

senior: The team members will not always consist of the “best” or most optimal

players, but in general the sufficient set of competence across the team is often

obtained . Even though we only gained a limited insight into the procedures for

resource utilization and team staffing, due to this not being a primary goal with

our study, the impression we got indicated that some professionals might suffer from learning arbitrary due to unfortunate team allocation. A senior consultant in

France suggested that the team allocation and resource utilization is basically

based on economic concerns on behalf of the company, overruling issues of

staffing in relation to individuals CD. This is business. Within every firm in this

study, the project manager was responsible for selecting team members, and most

newly employed identified this as a potential area of conflict. This was due to the

project leaders picking teams based on subjective preferences rather thanobjective qualifications. A Norwegian partner commented on the importance of

being submitted to the so-called “A-teams”: …a colleague’s lack of-, or slow-,

progression can relate to bad luck as the team he or she is a part of might cause

him or her to get stuck on a stereotype project portfolio. As suggested by Kaiser

& Ringlstetter (2011), professionals experiencing certain gaps between

requirements for a specific task and his or her available skills will strive to

improve and compensate. Still, this might prove difficult, as the professionals

might perceive themselves “stuck” in a situation with less fortunate clients and/or

teams. A newly employed in Norway commented on her perception of fairness

regarding staffing of projects, and said the following: It provokes me that some

colleagues are doing better than me due to luck rather than hard work. In the

beginning there is nothing you can do about changing the team and/or clients you

are given, and if you are unfortunate to end up with less attractive clients, your

CD will be relatively lower compared to your more fortunate colleagues. This is

where the competence gaps emerge. Here we would like to add that our findings

suggest the tendency of so-called ‘in-groups’ and ‘out-groups’, as earlier

Page 91





discussed under national culture. Several respondents acknowledged that every

team has their own identity, functioning as independent units and where it is hard

for outsiders to enter and being “granted access”. Our reflection on this issue is

that teams naturally seem to focus inward, turning isolated due to their focus on

team goals and bonding with team members. We believe that even if team

members intend to share knowledge with “outsiders”, they are already suffering

from team goals pulling them into the team again. Hence, we are here touching

upon one of the main CD constraints addressed in our study: high workload and

pressure. As we see it, a possible side affect of isolated teams is that it hinders

generation of new ideas to develop, hence perhaps also CD, as they lose contact

with the outside world.

As a general remark to our findings we see that the major CD contributor is found

in the doing. With regards to the knowledge accumulation at organizational level,

exemplified by the organizational databases in the previous chapter, we would

like to make reference to Cook and Yanow (1996) suggesting that knowledge

accumulation involves continual development and shared understandings among

groups. This implies that tacit knowledge arises through social interactions amongthe professionals in their daily operations. Further, as argues by Lave and Wenger

(1991), the inclusion of newly employed in the continuous work and problem-

solving actions is crucial. ‘In many firms, teams are the building block of the

organization’, as indicated by McDermott (1999:1), and to us, it seems purely

beneficial to compose teams consisting of people with different backgrounds as to

enable a full range of services to a client. We also believe that as a member of a

team, the social glue within the team can promote a sense of safety for the

professionals – enabling them to more easily share their thinking, ask questions,

and learn from others. Thus, we suppose that this will support a more open and

collectivistic attitude within the team-, and potentially also within companies, as a

whole.

4.3.2 Learning from Others

Learning from others was found to be the second largest contributor of CD among

most professionals on all levels, in both countries. All the companies in our study

Page 92





have a set of tools implemented to manage and articulate knowledge, namely

technical tools, which we have already discussed. But in spite of these efforts,

they cannot substitute personalization strategies in terms of transferring tacit

knowledge (Hansen, Nohria & Tierney, 1999). When dealing with more

standardized and repetitive work, articulated and stored knowledge is in some

cases more convenient and appropriate. However, in situations where creative

problem solving is required, interaction between competent and knowledgeable

individuals is needed, as indicated in the previous section. The companies need an

underlying philosophy that guides them in their daily interaction and aid them in

turning knowledge into action. Creating competence on both an individual and

collective level is in this sense a social act, placing the responsibility onindividuals to trigger the development of competence, firstly on an individual

level – consequently enabling development on an organizational level. For less

experienced consultants, meeting client’s face-to-face with- or without colleagues,

was an important component in their development. For the more experienced

consultants, collaboration with competent clients and colleagues was mentioned

as key contributors to their performance, development and project output.

Respondents at senior level have emphasized competence diversity within teamsin general as crucial for dynamics and their own learning. Among the partners, it

was frequently stated that they learned from knowledgeable buyers and other

partners.

Company Mentality and Culture

We have chosen to categorize the companies’ need for an underlying philosophy,

as mentioned on the previous page, to be a part of the company mentality and

culture. As the more general aspects on national- and corporate culture have

already been addressed, we will here focus on issues of trust and loyalty. We

would like to remind the reader that these elements were not within our primary

focus during interviews, nor did we pose explicit questions addressing trust and

loyalty. Nevertheless, as several of our respondents naturally focused on these

subjects when describing the main issues under investigation, we find them

relevant to include as they possibly can contribute to giving the reader a broader

insight. Also, at later stages of the interview process we realized that these issues

Page 93





directly seemed to affect interaction within the companies, which in turn

influenced knowledge sharing, hence CD.

In addressing these issues we turned to Maister (1985), who proposed a model of

professional firm success. He identified so-called ‘one-firm firms’, remarkable at

establishing institutional loyalty and group effort. By favoring group identity and

teamwork, the one-firm firms were successful in creating institutional

commitment, hence also employee satisfaction and attachment. After viewing our

findings we certainly find signs of willingness among the firms, to be recognized

as one-firm firms, however our findings indicate discrepancies. This is mainly on

the area of loyalty, and especially in France. If we turn to other research, it has been demonstrated that increased identification with an organization more

generally promotes a number of beneficial consequences generally for the firm:

enhanced support and commitment; intergroup cohesion; cooperation and

altruism; loyalty and adherence to group values; and norms and homogeneity

(Turner, 1982, 1984; Ashforth & Mael, 1989 in Alvesson, Robertson & Swan,

2001:6). As some of our respondents indicated lack of loyalty, trust, and therefore

lower willingness to share knowledge, the firms may question what they aremissing out on.

The lack of trust was by a few respondents mentioned to have a constraining

effect on CD. When comparing levels, it was mainly the professionals on the

senior and partner level in France, who mostly identified this as a constraint. The

companies included in this study can be identified as, what we label, elitist

companies (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006), claiming to recruit the “best people”

and openly promoting an “up-or-out” system. ‘Obviously, such orientation hardly

fosters a communal spirit and loyalty’ (Alvesson, 2002:9), and the company-

employee relationship can, as we see it, be characterized as fairly calculated and

instrumental. Alvesson (2002:9) illustrated the hierarchy of loyalty within the two

IT/management consulting firms he studied, with the following quote: ‘First, you

are loyal to yourself. Second, you are loyal to the project. Third, you are loyal to

the company.’ We are not in a position to fully determine whether this hierarchy

is present among our respondents and firms, however we chose to include it as we

certainly found Alvesson’s (2002) findings interesting. As an overall remark, we

Page 94





think that if such a hierarchy actually exists; this would be a noteworthy issue for

firms. Might the professionals’ predominant loyalty to themselves nurture

opportunistic mindset, where the professionals focus on individual benefits rather

than collective benefit?

We have chosen to illustrate our impression of the French culture for trust by

referring to a French partner’s experience regarding lack of trust: When I arrived

in this company, I was quickly made aware that there was no such thing as trust. I

was exposed to an unusual high pressure that I have never experienced before. He

had not been able to meet target on a project, due to what he called an inhumanly

heavy workload and time pressure, however when approaching his superior withthe problem he had been verbally insulted: If you don’t meet target you are worth

nothing . After this incident he learned that the non-negotiable attitude amongst

managers was a culturally established behavior. When becoming a manager

himself, he learned that the team he was responsible for neither was trust-oriented

and that they seemed “programmed” to not deliver results until they were pushed

or triggered to do so. The problems this would introduce were that in situations

where team members were not able to successfully fulfill project requirements,they would naturally try to cover this up by dishonesty towards him as a

subordinate. When he realized this, he reorganized his team by recruiting new

team members stressed on the importance of trust: Today, in my team, we have

established a trust relationship. They tell me when something goes wrong. The

simple explanation is that with terror bosses you impose the wrong control

behavior. People will start hiding the truth. In my team today, in cases where they

are not able to fulfill target, they will let me know and I will involve in the aim of

finding a solution. If you force terror management style, people will try to cover

up the truth. However, within the organization in general the terror management

is still highly present and when my team is not able to deliver decent results I will

try to put makeup on my figures to make them look more decent. He further

expressed frustration and concerns on the consequences that this management

style would create in the long run, if the inhuman pressure put on the consultants

not would be outbalanced. We turn to literature in order to address the issue of

trust found in this particular example as well as throughout statements made by

French respondents. We find that France is characterized as a low trust society,

Page 95





and with high power distance (Samovar & Porter, 2004; Hofstede, 2009), in

general and compared to Norway. This further indicates that the strong

relationships are reserved for the family and close friends, and that people need to

know each other well in order to trust each other (Fukuyama, 1995). Additionally,

the country acknowledges power and hierarchy as a part of their society, and

superiors are recognized as seldom informally mixing with lower ranks (Mole,

2001; Scholliers, 2001). Nevertheless, Mole (2001) also indicated that

communication in French companies have two dimensions; one for professional

settings, where the external impression appear orderly professional, and one for

personal relationships, applied in informal settings. As we see it, this may serve as

mitigating “evidence” in relation to the rather discouraging findings concerningthe effects of the French hierarchy. This is because we think that biases may arise

due to the culturally established expectations of French managers. Culture may

have established certain expectancies on how managers are supposed to behave,

and these expectations in themselves may enforce the maintenance of the

hierarchical structure, both on national- and organizational level. Either way, we

believe that managers are likely to feel forced to behave in accordance to

expectations when “performing” their role at work. However beneath the orderly professional surface, our impression is, from interviewing the French managers

ourselves, that in more informal settings we are not able to identify behavioral

differences beyond natural variations personality-wise, based on our interaction.

As we perceived our interactions with the French partners as informal, open, and

trusting, we hereby question if this was due to us not being recognized as within

their formal category.

Several types of competences can be developed through learning by doing and

learning from others. For all three levels, learning by doing through working

together with colleagues in teams through daily work, enhances their

competences. For newly employed especially meta-competences are developed

whereof analytical skills, communication skills and collaboration skills are of

importance. Also intra-organizational competence can be developed in the way

that they e.g. learn about their colleagues. We view this as especially important

for partners as we saw in the previous discussion on CD through investments, that

CV databases were not updated, and rarely used. Having an overview of the

Page 96





competence the firm is all together in possession of, is important for optimal

utilization (Nordhaug, 1993). Furthermore, technical trade competence and

industry competence can be developed through daily work and experience. We

find this to be of especial importance on the lower levels of the firms, as

professionals at this stage mainly have no familiarity with the industry, neither has

the competence needed to perform certain tasks within the consulting industry.

For learning from others, more or less the same type of competences are

developed, however, technical trade competence is not necessarily developed as

this is gained through practice, and not necessarily the socialization processes.

This might be because much of the technical trade competences contain tacit

knowledge. To view it from a different angle, due to high pressure identified,these are the types of competences that the professionals may miss the opportunity

to develop. These are the three competence types that we here view of importance

and that needs experience in daily work to be developed.

Linking our findings to literature, there are several factors affecting the

knowledge sharing activity, and as suggested by Chowdhury (2005, cited in

Akgün et al., 2007), the main question is what makes individuals share knowledgeefficiently with others in the organization. Trust is identified as an important

element behind individuals’ decision to share knowledge. As stated by Lucas

(2005), trust improves the quality of dialogue and discussions that further

facilitates the sharing of knowledge; hence, trust is key to effective

communication.

The model below serves as a summary of the main contributors and constraints to

CD through investments. The figure is structured in accordance to our two main

headings under ‘Daily Operations’: ‘Learning by Doing’ and ‘Learning from

Others’. Further we have chosen to indicate the sub headings within these two

categories, in bold.

CD through Daily Operations Contributors ConstraintsLearning by Doing - Challenging projects (All)

- Repetitively similar

projects (Few NE + S, N):

Professionals become

- High pressure (All):

time pressure, heavy

workloads, negative effect

on interaction, limited

Page 97





subject matter

experts/SMEs.

- Team composition (All):

facilitates trust,

commitment and

attachment, building block

in organizations, social

glue.

- Under delegation

problems: no clear findings

indicated that this is a

contributor to CD.

availability of superiors,

“bosses” not teachers,

clients first.

- Repetitively similar

projects (Most NE + S):

do not meet CD goals

since they cannot

participate on new and

challenging projects,

decreased motivation.

- Team composition

(Most NE + S, especially

in F): isolated teams and

“in”- and “out” groups,

luck, differences in

competence levels.

- Under delegation

problems (Most NE): get

too little responsibility in

projects, not assigned to

new and challenging

tasks, utilization of

knowledge, reinforcing

hierarchyLearning from Others - Competent clients and

colleagues (Most S + P)

- Competence diversity

(All)

- Meeting the client face-to-

face (All)

- Meeting the client together

with colleagues (Most NE)

- Company mentality and

culture (Most P):

perceived willingness to be

one-firm firms.

- Availability of

partners/superiors (Most

NE, especially in F)

- High time- and

workload pressure (All)

- Willingness to share

knowledge (Most S,

especially F)

- Company mentality

and culture: hierarchy

negatively affecting trust

and loyalty (All, F),

dishonesty (All, F).

Figure 10: Summary of CD through daily operations.

4.4 Summary

In this chapter we have presented our findings together with a cross-case analysis

and discussion. We have addressed three main issues directly linked to our sub

Page 98





research questions; namely that of culture, CD through investments, and CD

through daily operations. Throughout this chapter we have sought to incorporate

our opinions and perceptions, however these must not be confused with the

statements from the respondents. At the end of each section within this chapter,

we have added general remarks, and responded to the three sub research questions

set forth in chapter 1. We will however not further elaborate on this as the first

section in the next chapter contains concluding remarks.

Page 99





Page 100





5.0 Concluding Remarks and Managerial Implications

In this chapter we will firstly present concluding remarks on our main findings.

Secondly we will move to managerial implications. Thirdly, the limitations of this

study are reflected upon, and lastly, we finalize this thesis by turning to

suggestions for further research.

5.1 Concluding Remarks

The purpose of this study was to view how CD takes place in PSFs in France and

Norway, emphasizing on identifying the main contributors and constraints to CD.

In line with previous literature (e.g. Itami, 1987; Fosstenløkken, 2007), our

findings and analysis highlighted that, across cases, CD takes place through two

main routes; (i) investments made by the firm, and (ii) daily operations.

A surprising finding was that national culture seemed not to influence how

professionals develop competence as heavily as we initially expected. However

the differences found across borders may have important implications and effectson CD. Primarily the cultural differences effected the interaction among

professionals. In France, we found indications suggesting a lower degree of

knowledge sharing and culture for asking questions. This may further negatively

reflect upon CD. In Norway, the attitudes towards sharing knowledge were

perceived as more positive and attentive.

We further found that what professionals perceived as contributors and constraints

were more similar than different across cases. From the comparative analysis we

found that the main contributors of CD primarily were found within daily

operations, whereas the main constraints can be related to the investments made

by the firms. Overall, the main contributors to CD from our findings were

learning by doing, learning from others, and mentoring systems. Learning by

doing and learning from others were identified as contributors by all three levels

in both countries, whereas Norwegian professionals mostly identified mentoring

systems as a contributor. The main constraints were identified as general high

pressure, willingness to share information, lack of relevant practice opportunities,

Page 101





and repetitively similar projects. Down-prioritization of CD was found to be an

overall constraint. The main constraints identified have been more evident on the

newly employed- and senior level. We question if this may be because the

partners are the ones with an inherent responsibility for initiating, enabling-, and

investing in several of the CD processes within the firm. Hence, we may thereby

further question if their responses suffers from “glorified biases”.

The focus on CD is present in all of the companies, however the prioritization

seems to be lacking. In other words, it seems as though long-term CD efforts are

found to be far down on the priority list. Thereby, one may question if CD is to be

left to the professionals and their own initiatives.

The fact that clients are becoming more demanding and the fact that companies

are down-prioritizing CD, we believe is quite contradictory, in terms of long-term

firm sustainability. All in all, we can conclude that to be able to draw conclusions

on a general matter, future research is needed.

5.2 Managerial Implications

Managers of PSFs have an important task in laying the foundation for

advantageous CD processes that can generate an improved resource base for the

firm, to enable attracting the right professionals and clients. Balancing this act is,

as we view it, far from simple. There are several challenges managers are facing

that need to be considered in order to orchestrate CD in PSFs. We are here going

to suggest several implications for managers, that we have identified based on our

main findings related to our sub research questions. Due to our findings being

quite similar to those of Fosstenløkken’s (2007), certain of our implications are

along the same lines.

5.2.1 Communication – the Crucial Glue

Our findings indicate that culture influences how professionals developcompetence. Therefore managers should assess their resources in terms of its

effective and/or ineffective utilization. It might be that allocating resources

Page 102





differently could improve the flow of communication, and thereby knowledge

sharing, both within- and across firms and countries. We identified that the area

mostly affected by cultural differences, seemed to be communication – which we

identify as a crucial glue in firms generation of knowledge, hence also CD.

Regarding the somewhat strained culture for asking questions across layers in

France, investments made by firms could be allocated to mentoring systems as we

found that in several of the firms, mentoring systems had been discontinued. Most

respondents in both countries viewed mentoring systems as an important

contributor to CD. Our findings suggested that in the firms without these

facilitations, the lack of culture for asking questions seemed to be more of anemphasized problem, as newly employed and seniors had fewer to turn to. In

terms of the lower degree of culture for sharing knowledge in France, trust and

openness were identified as crucial matters that should be of focus to generate a

sharing culture. Also, firms should increase awareness of the value of

communication and knowledge sharing among professionals within the firm and

across firm divisions, in order for the professionals to fully grasp its importance.

In turn, this suggestion, together with creating trust and increased openness, could potentially make professionals prioritizing-, and maybe becoming more willing to,

share information.

Also, lower willingness to share knowledge influences the use of technical tools

in which the firms have heavily invested. Our findings related to this indicated

that France experienced more challenges as professionals did not seem to

contribute to the collective competence of the firm by sharing experience in

databases. As a French senior consultant said: I don’t think you’ll find even one

French project . Moreover, the French professionals neither seemed to take

advantage of other countries’ project reports, due to unfamiliarity with the sender.

Increased awareness among professionals regarding benefits of using technical

tools seems to be appropriate. Despite the fact that even explicit knowledge is

time consuming to store, it can potentially save the professionals’ time in the long

run as it facilitates quick access to information. This should be important due to

time being identified as a scarce resource. More specifically, they can save time in

terms of e.g. to some extent reuse previous reports containing methodologies and

Page 103





templates to solve complex client problems. Additionally, the firm needs to stress

the importance of the potential affects the professionals low usage rate can have

on firm level. Examples of these important potential effects can be waste of

resources spent on creating systems not being used, the benefit or reusing certain

components from previous projects in terms of saving time, hence costs, and the

fact that it can generate increased quality deliverance to clients as a consequence

of an overall increased competence base at firm level. As our findings indicated

that firms are not measuring degree of usage of the technical tools, we suggest

that this should be addressed in terms of assessing the value of their investments

made, in these supporting activities to CD.

5.2.2 Aligning Firm Goals with CD of Professionals

One of the major issues identified through our findings was the surprisingly low

priority CD seemed to have in the respective firms. This served as a major

constraint according to the professionals in general. Despite the fact that clients

come first, the quality of the deliverance of the professionals to the client largely

depend on their competence level and ability to deliver what has been promised

(Løwendahl, 2009). Managers should here see if priorities could be set to ensure

alignment between the strategic goals of the firm, and CD of their professionals.

This balance is complicated to achieve, especially because the firms in real life are

largely complex. One explanatory factor of this might be that most firms are

experiencing difficulties in the positioning of the firm (Fosstenløkken, 2007). For

managers, our suggestion then is to reflect upon their choice of strategy, in terms

of what kind of strategy they are utilizing for creating value. The reasoning behind

this could be linked to the companies included in this study having applied

different strategies whereof it is suggested that the firms should develop different

competences. If the firm’s focus is solely on billable hours, and if client projects

are allowed to dictate a large degree of what the professionals are learning, firms

may risk that CD and value creation gets “jammed” on a short-term level. For

example, if firms are client-relation based, the focus should be on developing CD

that can enhance the positive and strong relationship with clients. Another

suggestion is that if the firm has an output-based strategy, the focus might be

appropriate to put on CD processes that enable reuse of solutions, hence efficient

Page 104





service delivery. By identifying the firms’ overall strategy, it might enable a better

facilitation of appropriate CD processes that are aligned with the firm’s overall

goals.

5.2.3 Supporting the Contributors and Reducing the Constraints of CD

Another challenge for managers is to support professionals in circumstances that

contribute to CD, parallel with diminishing the constraints. Our findings suggest

that the main arena for CD contributors is through daily operations, more

specifically through the professionals project work. The main constraints are

identified as being high pressure, low willingness to share knowledge, firms

down-prioritizing CD, and lack of relevant practice opportunities. As our findings

indicate that learning through daily operations, and especially learning by doing,

are major contributors, firms could emphasize and nurture these informal learning

processes. The issue, according to both our and Fosstenløkken’s (2007) findings,

is that learning by doing can more easily be neglected in daily operations due to

high pressure and client expectations. Generally speaking, it might be important to

enhance explicitness, awareness, and reflection on the identified informal CD

processes, among all of the professionals. Similarly as previously mentioned, we

stress the importance of not only focusing on billable hours, as this in general

supports short-term outcomes, but maybe rather enhancing focus on getting

projects where there exist opportunities for CD. Focusing on billable hours, and

comparing with competitors on this basis, may not necessarily contribute to long-

term growth, and may neither reflect companies’ quality and/or level of

competence. It might be that competitors with a seemingly lower productivity, in

fact are investing and focusing in CD processes, identified as crucial for the

future. Since the constraints and contributors are within different areas, this

implies and requires different approaches and actions taken. Could it be that to

support the learning by doing in daily operations, managers can direct individuals

to the projects that are relevant for the competence they either possess, or needs to

develop? If so, systematized team staffing to lead professionals on different

levels to the different projects, becomes even more important. The focus must not

only be on what is appropriate team staffing for one certain project, but also in

terms of what competences individuals can develop to enable allocation to a wider

Page 105





project range in the future. Matching and mixing individuals, teams and projects

seem to be important to increase CD both on an individual- and company level, as

it is identified as an essential part for value creation. Another important finding

was that new and challenging projects is a major contributor to CD. In relation to

this, delegating professionals to projects that can enhance their CD is not only

positive for the firm in terms of long-term value creation, but also for retention. It

might contribute to reducing the potential of the firm “loosing” competence in

terms of loosing important professionals, hence often also clients. Overall,

enhancing professionals CD through new and challenging projects may in turn

potentially reduce the firms’ costs related to training new professionals, due to the potential higher retention rate. Constraints due to high time pressure will in the

short-term not necessarily be reduced, however by doing this, it enables

individuals to develop needed competences, and maybe even a wider range of

competences, which in the longer run could lead to a higher number of

professionals matching different projects. This in turn could potentially reduce the

constraint of high time pressure to a certain extent, in the way that they have more

professionals with competence needed in the different projects; hence the issue of finding the available people might not be so prominent.

Through creating consciousness in relations to these managerial challenges, it is

suggested that managers might be in a better position to assess their investments

and allocation of resources, to be able to improve the foundation on which

decisions regarding CD in management consulting firms, are taken.

5.3 Limitations

As with all research, our study has its shortcomings and limitations. We will

introduce and reflect on the research conducted in this study and the potential

shortcomings. The limitation will here be particularly related to (i) choice of

literature and the issue under investigation, and (ii) methodology.

Page 106





5.3.1 Choice of Literature and the Issue under Investigation

Choice of Literature

Our choice of literature included forms our analysis and the interpretations made

in the discussion. If other literature was selected, results and interpretations may

have been different. By making a choice of relevant literature, in terms of

answering our sub questions, other important and potentially influential literature

might also have been overlooked. Our theoretical lens is to our best ability applied

in the aim of addressing applicable issues.

The Issue under Investigation

We have found studying the concepts of competence, to be challenging. We have

chosen to apply a rather broad definition and have relied on in-depth interviews in

order to be able to capture some of the richness and complexity that may be

fundamental to the concepts within the firms (Henderson & Cockburn, 1994).

However we realize that our preconceptions and beliefs may have been influenced

by the way we conducted the study, and that our approach is only one way of

going about investigation of the issues. On the contrary, due to our initialunfamiliarity with the subject under investigation, the time we spent on learning

about the industry allowed us to develop our own perceptions, viewing the

industry from a fresh perspective. In this process we matured, and we truly

believe that this has benefited us in our process. On a more general note, we have

sought to identify patterns of how CD of professionals takes place within the PSFs

of this study. On the question on whether firms will be able to perform better due

to the CD of professionals, we are not in a position to answer.

5.3.2 Methodology

Research Design and Process

It is not possible to make causal conclusions from exploratory case studies. This is

due to that these case studies are concerned with assessing phenomena, and that

alternative explanations cannot be ruled out (Yin, 2009). Concerning

Page 107





generalizability, the case study refers to individuals, and the behavior and/or

statements from one individual may not reflect the behavior and/or statements of

the general group or population (Eisenhardt, 1989; Andersen, 1997), in our case

PSFs and/or management consulting firms. To what degree our research can be

used as a base to draw comparisons with other settings, is left to the reader to

decide. The readers will have to judge the usefulness of our research, however we

have only sought to identify patterns of how CD takes place within the PSFs in

this study. To our best ability, we have tried to minimize limitations by gathering,

analyzing, and reporting data as systematically as possible, with care and

discipline. However we acknowledge that possible shortcomings and/or errors

related to the interview questions could have been reduced by conducting a pilotstudy.

Patton (2002) states that validity and reliability are two factors that qualitative

research should be concerned with, just as much as in quantitative research. On

the other hand, Golafshani (2003) suggest that there is a need for redefining the

terms reliability and validity in the naturalistic, and thereby qualitative approach.

This is because the two terms originally are rooted in the positivist perspective. To be more specific with the term of reliability in qualitative research, Lincoln and

Guba (1985) suggest that one should rather use the term ‘dependability’,

corresponding to the notion of reliability in quantitative research. Furthermore,

Creswell and Miller (2000) suggest that the researchers and their perception of

validity influence the validity of studies. Consequently, several researchers have

created their own concepts of validity and thereby terms viewed appropriate such

as, quality, rigor and trustworthiness (Davies & Dodd, 2002; Lincoln & Guba,

1985; Seale, 1999; Stenbacka, 2001). Since the terms reliability and validity are

commonly used terms in describing the quality of methodology, we have for

practical reasons chosen to apply these terms in our study.

Sample Size and Respondents

We have achieved a response rate of 82,22% by conducting 37 interviews out of

the 45 professionals contacted in total. Out of these 45, five respondents did not

respond to our request, and the remaining three did not manage to find a suitable

time for the interview. Nevertheless, this sample size, in addition to being case

Page 108





studies, naturally makes broad generalizations impossible. As this project is set

out to be a case study, our aim was not to generalize to a population. However, we

still believe that the results may be applied in other contexts, as a practical

introduction. This is, however left for readers and future researchers to determine.

Another aspect of the sampling is that fewer cases would have enabled more time

with each informant. That being said, we found it valuable to achieve 37

interviews as each and one of them contributed to a broader understanding of the

issues under investigation.

By conducting case studies within the same industry (management consulting) we

excluded the possibility of depicting between-industry comparisons. On the other hand, our approach will, in our view, facilitate a more thorough insight of CD

among the professionals and within the firms selected. By limiting the research to

one specific sector we have gained more in-depth knowledge about this specific

industry, and we felt that this provided us with a more solid ground for asking

relevant questions when conducting the interviews.

Despite the high response rate, more time would possibly have facilitated a larger sample and possibly an even higher response rate. Nevertheless, gaining a large

enough sample to draw representative conclusions about a population would not

have been in reach within the limits of our design and this thesis. This was neither

our goal.

Representative sampling cannot always be achieved in qualitative research. We

started our process by approaching several management consulting firms.

Participants were initially approached via contact persons, such as HR

responsibles or CEOs. In the process of getting acceptance, we followed up the

subjects via phone, email and/or by meeting with them directly. Due to a

presumption that the most efficient way for us to get contacts within the French

companies would be through contacts within the Norwegian sister company, we

initially approached the Norwegian companies. In this process we got a total of

three rejections among the firms we contacted in Norway, leaving us with seven

out of ten possible firms participating. We then preceded targeting the sister

companies of these firms in France. Some were approached directly based on

Page 109





contact information given by the Norwegian colleagues, others through being

introduced by Norwegian partners. In France six out of the seven wanted to

participate. With the process described above one can hardly identify this as

random sampling. Random sampling however is identified as more important

when generalizations are to be made, which is not our point (Yin, 2009). Also it

was important for the purpose of our study to receive participators on the three

different levels of seniority.

Response Bias

Self-reported data contain several potential sources of bias. On one side, it allows

us to investigate CD from the view of the respondent. Yet, the subjects mayconsciously or subconsciously have given answers that project their ideal self, or

answers that are politically correct and in accordance with the image of the

company.

Biases Linked to the Researchers

Our data has been gathered through interviews where we have been aiming to tap

into the depths of reality of the situation and experience of the respondents. It has been essential for us to develop empathy with the interviewees and to win their

confidence in order for them to open up. None of us have experience in

conducting interviews and both of us are students. This may have implications for

the conduction of the interviews as well as quality of the outcomes. Potential bias

may be found in subconscious clues given when interviewing. Body language,

tone of voice and phrasing of questions may influence the subject into giving

answers skewed towards our own opinions and prejudices. Also, with our status as

students, the respondents may consciously or subconsciously be reluctant to

opening up, interpreting us as less influential and/or serious than e.g. a more

experienced researcher such as a professor. Our experience, however, is that the

possible weaknesses linked to our status not has been a noteworthy limitation.

Since we have conducted interviews based on the general interview guide

approach, this leaves the majority of the talk to the respondents. We have paid

careful attention to our manner of approach, acting professional, and trustworthy.

Close to all interviews have been conducted with both of us present, allowing us

to ensure that all questions are asked properly, that interview transcripts are

Page 110





compared and summarized in collaboration, and that data and interpretations

afterwards have been handled thoroughly. Also, in order to allow the readers to

draw their own conclusions about whether the findings are plausible, we have

chosen to include quotes from interviews.

Both researchers are of the same sex and have the same educational background

and the results might have been different if we were of the opposite gender and/or

had differing educational orientations. None of us had previous work experience

with- and/or hands-on experience and insight into, the PSF industry itself before

starting this project. We picked our thesis subject due to pure fascination and

interest, and we have spent extensive time on learning about the industry byreading and interviewing respondents. Other sources of bias could potentially also

be found in our treatment of data, concerning issues of selective memory,

telescoping, attribution and exaggeration.

Access

Our study has been dependent on getting access to firms and respondents within

the industry of interest. We have gone through a time- and somewhat costconsuming process in the aim of gathering data and interpreting results. To a

certain degree this of course limited our time to analyze our findings. On the

contrary, the fairly thorough data gathering extended our understanding and

insight into the issue under investigation. For us, this part of the process was

extremely valuable in terms of personal development. We also recognized that our

interview style improved in terms of efficiency, and that it with time enabled us to

see an even broader picture.

Interpretation

Since we have conducted a foreign language research, this has had implications

for the research- and writing process. Possible biases can be linked to cultural

differences with regards to word connotations, interpretation and presentation of

findings. Interviews conducted in France were conducted in our second language,

English, hence potential bias related to interpretations and translation may have

occurred. Also, potential bias could occur when translating the Norwegian

interviews into English. The same biases are also present for the French

Page 111





respondents, communicating in a foreign language. Examples of issues that may

occur in relation to translation, and the fact that interviews were conducted in

foreign languages, are e.g. comprehension and connotations, conveying nuances

in responses about especially feelings and perceptions, responses “loosing” its

original meaning during translation.

After viewing the limitations of this study we will now turn to suggestions for

further research avenues.

5.4 Suggestions for Further Research

First and foremost we would find it personally interesting to further investigate

the meaning and effects CD may have with regards to firm performance. We feel

this would be a natural next step to more thoroughly investigate this since PSFs

are highly dependent of competence, yet they down prioritize CD. How are these

two rather contradictory aspects going to add up in the long run? Furthermore,

based on Maister (1993), stating that firms that fail to generate new knowledge

will sooner or later face problems. One example is that our findings indicate that

both time and cost pressure limit the professionals’ ability to develop customized

problem solving solutions. By not being able to develop these creative problem

solutions, the professionals, hence firm, might “loose out” acquiring new

knowledge in the long run.

Our findings suggest that the degree of knowledge sharing across borders is lower

in France compared to Norway. We found that Hall’s explanations of high- and

low context cultures could be a possible explanation to some extent. Personally,

we would find it interesting to look deeper into the other plausible explanations

for this as this might contribute to a deeper understanding for both managers and

professionals to enable finding alternative ways to approach this problem. Our

respondents also identified that it might be an issue of trust. Future research

should examine the roles that trust play both internally amongst professionals and

externally with stakeholders.

Page 112





Another thinkable extension element would be to include an analysis of the

respondents’ background more systematically as to identify possible explanations

to their CD stemming from education, previous work experience etc. Also, this

could be done at firm level. In a non-anonymous study, a broader data collection,

including secondary data such as firms’ websites, annual reports, databases,

training material and other internal documents could be used, and would allow a

more thorough impression of each firm. Further research on this could examine

how this background information could influence how CD is developed.

Additionally, an extension of this research could be to include more or differentfirms, -industries, and –nationalities, as this could generate different findings.

Extending the study to other organizations under the broader umbrella PSFs

would facilitate an interesting foundation for comparison across firms, and we

believe this would be of great interest as well. Also, a study comparing the

findings found within our study with non-PSFs could give exciting insight.

Another interesting path would be to compare small firms with larger ones, both

domestically and globally.

Further research could also investigate the relationship between professionals and

clients. Investigating the consequences of increasingly more sophisticated clients

and the effect on e.g. relationships, quality, loyalty, demand could be an

interesting path. Here, also investigating the effect on CD could be looked into.

Another area for further research could be to dig deeper into the development and

maintenance of firm reputation; e.g. to what degree individuals within the firms

contributed to firm reputation, how the competitors impact on the reputation of

firms within industries and to which extent media and specific projects

contributes. Additionally, a thinkable extension in general could also be to

conduct a longitudinal study, gaining insight into the development and

evolvement of CD over time.

Page 113





References

Written Sources:

Adler, N. J., J. Campbell, & A. Laurent. 1989. In Search of Appropriate

Methodology: From Outside the People's Republic of China Looking in. Journal

of International Business Studies, 20 (1): 61-74.

Aharoni, Y. 1993. Ownership, Networks and Coalitions. Cited in B. Løwendahl.

2001. Knowledge and Value Creation in Professional Service Firms: A

Framework for Analysis. Human Relations, 54 (7): 911-931.

Akgun, A.E., J. C. Byrne, G. S. Lynn, & H. Keskin. 2007. Organizational ̈

Unlearning as Changes in Beliefs and Routines in Organizations. Journal of

Organizational Change Management . 20 (6): 794-812.

Alvesson, M. 2001. Knowledge Work: Ambiguity, Image and Identity. Human

Relations, 54 (7): 863-886.

Alvesson, M. 2002. Up-or-out Versus Fun-and-profit: a Study of Personnel

Concepts and HR Themes in two IT/management Consulting Firms. Institute of

Economic Research. Department of Business Administration. Lund University

School of Economics. Working Paper Series.

Alvesson, M. 1993. Cultural-ideological Modes of Management Control . Cited in

Deetz, S. (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 16. Newbury Park, Ca: Sage.

Alvesson, M., M. Robertson, & M. Swan. 2001. The Best and the Brightest. The

Role of Elite Identity in Knowledge Intensive Companies. Paper presented at the

Critical Management Studies Conference. July 11-12.

Andersen, S.S. 1997. Case-studier og Generalisering – Forskningsstrategi

og Design. Bergen: Fagbokforlaget.

Armbruster, T. 2006. ̈ The Economics and Sociology of Management Consulting .

Page 114





Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ashforth, B., F. & Mael. 1989. Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Cited

in Alvesson, M., M. Robertson, & M. Swan. 2001. The Best and the Brightest.

The Role of Elite Identity in Knowledge Intensive Companies. Paper presented at

the Critical Management Studies Conference. July 11-12.

Barney, J. B. 1991. Firm Resources and Sustained Competitive Advantage. Cited

in Hitt, M. A., Bierman, L., Shimizu, K., & Kochhar, R. 2001. Direct and

Moderating Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in

Professional Service Firms: A Resource-based Perspective. Academy of Management Journal , 44 (1), 13-28.

Barney, J.B & D.N. Clark. 2007. Resource-Based Theory. New York: Oxford

University Press Inc.

Bhatt, G. D. 2001. Knowledge Management in Organizations: Examining the

Interaction Between Technologies, Techniques, and People. Journal of Knowledge Management, 5 (1): 68-75.

Boh, W. F. 2007. Mechanisms for Sharing Knowledge in Project-based

Organizations. Information and Organization. 17 (1): 27-58.

Boutaiba, S. & P. Bramming. 2004. The Art of Making Do. Institute for

Organisation og Arbejdssociologi. Handelshøjskolen i København. Working

Paper.

Broschak, J.P. 2001. Do the Actors Make the Play? Individual Mobility and the

Dissolution of Interorganizational Relationships. Presented at OMT Division,

Academy of Management Annual Meeting, Washington DC.

Cabrera, A. & E.F. Cabrera. 2002. Knowledge-sharing Dilemmas. Organization

Studies, 23 (5): 687–710.

Page 115





Choi, Y. S. 2000. An Empirical Study of Factors Affecting Successful

Implementation of Knowledge Management. Cited in Rasli A., M. Z. Madjid, &

A. Asmi. 2004. Factors that Influence Implementation of Knowledge

Management and Information Technology Infrastructure to Support Project

Performance in the Construction Industry. International Business Management

Conference.

Chowdhury, S., 2005. The Role of Affect- and Cognition-based Trust in Complex

Knowledge Sharing. Journal of Management Issues. 17 (3): 310-326.

Cohen, M. D., & L.S. Sproull (Eds.) Organizational Learning. 430-459.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cook, S. D., & D. Yanow. 1996. Culture and Organizational Learning. Cited in In

M. D. Cohen & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational Learning : 430-459.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. & D. L. Miller. 2000. Determining Validity in Qualitative Inquiry.Theory into Practice, 39 (3): 124-131.

Czarniawska, B., & B. Joerges. 1996. Travels of Ideas. Translating

Organizational Change. 13-49. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Czerniawska, F. 2007. The Trusted Firm: how Consulting Firms Build Successful

Client Relationships. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Davenport, T. & G. Probst. 2001. Knowledge Management Case Book . MCD

Verlag and Wiley and Sons, Berlin.

Davenport, T. & L. Prusak. 1998. Working Knowledge: How Organizations

Manage what They Know. Cited in Empson, L. 2001. Transfer in Mergers

between Professional Service Firms. Human Relations, 54 (7): 839-862.

Page 116





Davies, D., & J. Dodd. 2002. Qualitative Research and the Question of Rigor.

Qualitative Health Research, 12 (2): 279-289.

DeLong, T. J., & A. Nanda. 2003. Professional Services: Text and Cases. Cited in

Greenwood, R., S. X. Li, R. Prakash & D. L. Deephouse. 2005. Reputation,

Diversification, and Organzational Explanations of Performance in Professional

Service Firms. Organization Science, 16 (6): 661-673.

Dewey, J. 1916 (1966). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the

Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.

DiMaggio, P. J. & W. W. Powell. 1983. The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional

Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields. American

Sociological Review. 48 (2): 147-160.

Drucker, P. 1993. Post-capitalist Society. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Dutton, J. & J. Dukerich. 1991. Keeping an Eye on the Mirror: Image and Identityin Organizational Adaptation. Academy of Management Journal , 34 (3): 517-554.

Dutton, J., J. Dukerich, & C. Harquail. 1994. Organizational Images and Member

Identification, Administrative Science Quarterly, 39: 239-263.

Eisenhardt, K. M. 1989. Building Theories from Case Study Research. Academy

of Management Review, 14 (4): 532-550.

Eisner, E. W. 1991. The Enlightened Eye: Qualitative Inquiry and the

Enhancement of Educational Practice. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing

Company.

Empson, L. 2001. Fear of Exploitation and Fear of Contamination: Impediments

to Knowledge Transfer in Mergers between Professional Service Firms. Human

Relations, 54 (7): 839-862.

Page 117





Empson, L. 2000. Mergers Between Professional Service Firms: Exploring an

Undirected Process of Integration. Advances in Mergers and Acquisitions, 1: 205-

237.

Empson, L. 2000. Merging Professional Service Firms. Business Strategy Review,

11 (2): 39-46.

Forstenlechner, I., Lettice, F., Bourne, M., & Webb, C. 2007. Turning knowledge

into Value in Professional Service Firms. Performance Measurement & Metrics.

(8) 3: 146-56.

Fukuyama, F. 1995. Social Capital and the Global Economy: A Redrawn Map of

the World. Foreign Affairs. 74 (5): 89-103.

Golafshani, N. 2003. Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative

Research. The Qualitative Report. 8 (4): 597- 606.

Granovetter, M. 1985. Economic action and social structure: the problem of

embeddedness. Cited in Løwendahl, B. R., Ø. D. Revang, & S. M. Fosstenløkken.

2001. Knowledge and Value Creation in Professional Service Firms - A

Framework For Analysis. Human Relations, 54 (7): 911-931.

Grant, R.M. 1996. Toward a Knowledge-based Theory of the Firm. Cited in Hitt,

M. A., L. Bierman, K. Shimizu, & R. Kochhar. 2001. Direct and Moderating

Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service

Firms: A Resource-based Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1),

13–28.

Greenwood, R. & R. Suddaby. 2006. Institutional entrepreneurship in mature

fields: The big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal . 49 (1):

27-48.

Greenwood, R., S. Li & D.L Deephouse. 2002. Leveraging Intangible Assets:

Page 118





Determinants of Performance in US Accounting Firms. For the Workshop in

Professional Service Firms, University of Alberta.

Greenwood, R., S. X. Li, R. Prakash & D. L. Deephouse. 2005. Reputation,

Diversification, and Organzational Explanations of Performance in Professional

Service Firms. Organization Science, 16 (6): 661-673.

Gripsrud, G., U. H. Olsson & R. Silkoset. 2004. Metode og Dataanalyse med

Fokus på Beslutninger i Bedrifter . Norway: Høyskoleforlaget AS-Norwegian

Academic Press.

Haas, M. R., & M. T. Hansen. 2007. Different knowledge, different benefits:

toward a productivity perspective on knowledge sharing in organizations.

Strategic Management Journal . 28 (11): 1133-1153.

Hall, E.T. 1990. Understanding Cultural Differences. Yarmouth, Me: Intercultural

Press Inc.

Hansen, M. T., N. Nohria, & T. Tierney. 1999. What’s Your Strategy for

Managing Knowledge. Harvard Business Review, 77 (2): 106-116.

Henderson, R., & I. Cockburn. 1994. Measuring Competence? Exploring Firm

Effects in Pharmaceutical Research. Strategic Management Journal , 15 (8): 63-

84.

Hitt, M. A., L. Bierman, K. Shimizu, & R. Kochhar. 2001. Direct and Moderating

Effects of Human Capital on Strategy and Performance in Professional Service

Firms: A Resource-based Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 44 (1):

13–28.

Hodkinson, P. & H. Hodkinson. 2001. The Strengths and Limitations of Case

Study Research. Leeds: University of Leeds.

Page 119





Hofstede, G. 2001. Culture’s Consequences; Comparing Values, Behaviors,

Institutions, and Organizations Across Nations. Thousand Oaks California: Sage

Publications, Inc.

Hunter, L., P. Beaumont, & M. Lee. 2002. Knowledge Management Practice in

Scottish Law Firms. Human Resource Management Journal , 12 (2): 4-21.

Ibarra, H. 2000. Making Partner: A Mentor's Guide to the Psychological Journey.

Harvard Business Review. 78 (2): 146-155.

Itami, H. (with Roehl, T.) 1987. Mobilizing Invisible Assets. Boston: HarvardUniversity Press.

Jones, M. 2007. Hofstede - Culturally Questionable? Oxford Business &

Economics Conference, June 24-26, UK: Oxford University.

Joppe, M. 2000. The Research Process. In Golafshani, N. 2003. Understanding

Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report . 8(4):597- 606.

Kaiser, S.. & M. Ringlstetter. 2011. Strategic Management of Professional

Service Firms. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Kogut, B. & U. Zander. 1992. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities,

and the Replication of Technology. Organization Science, 3 (3): 383-397.

Kolb, D.A. 1984. Experiential Learning–Experience as the Source of Learning

and Development . New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Krogh, V. G., Roos, J. & L. Slocum. 1994. An Essay on Corporate Epistemology.

Strategic Management Journal , 15 (5): 53-71.

Kubr, M. 1996. Management Consulting: a Guide to the Profession. Geneva:

International Labour Organisation.

Page 120





Kubr, M. 2002. Management Consulting: a Guide to the Profession. 4th ed.

Geneva: International Labour Organisation.

Kvålshaugen, R., B. R. Løwendahl, T. Skjølsvik, & S. M. Fosstenløkken. 2006.

Incremental Learning in Professional Service Firms: The Importance of Project

and Client Characteristics. Organizational Learning and Knowledge Conference

Warwick .

Kärreman, D., S. Sveningsson, & M. Alvesson. 2002. The Return of the Machine

Bureaucracy? Management Control in the Work settings of Professionals. International Studies of Management Organization. 32 (2): 70–92.

Lave, J., & E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral

Participation. Cited in Løwendahl, B. R., Ø. D. Revang, & S. M. Fosstenløkken.

2001. Knowledge and Value Creation in Professional Service Firms - A

Framework For Analysis. Human Relations, 54 (7): 911-931.

Lepak, D., & S. Snell. 1999. The Strategic Management of Human Capital:

Determinants and Implications of Different Relationships. Academy of

Management Review. 24 (1): 1-18.

Levinthal, D. A., & M. Fichman. 1988. Dynamics of Interorganizational

Attachments: Auditor-Client Relationships. Administrative Science Quarterly, 33

(3): 345-369.

Liebeskind, J. P. 1996. Knowledge, Strategy, and the Theory of the Firm.

Strategic Management Journal , 17 (winter): 93-107.

Liedtka, J. M., M. E. Haskins, & J. W. Rosenblum. 1997. The Generative Cycle:

Linking Knowledge and Relationships. Sloan Management Review. 39 (1): 47-58.

Lincoln, Y. S., & E. G. Guba. 1985. Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Page 121





Lofstedt, U. 2001. Competence Development and Learning Organisation: A

Critical Analysis of Practical Guidelines and Methods. Systems Research and

Behavioral Science. 18 (2): 115-125.

Lorsch, J. W., & T. J. Tierney. 2002. Aligning the Stars: How to Succeed When

Professionals Drive Results. Harvard Business School Press.

Lowe, S. C. 2004. Marketplace Master’s: How Professional Service Firms

Compete to Win. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.

Lucia, A., & R. Lepsinger. 1999. The Art and Science of Competency Models: Pinpointing Critical Success Factors in Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass/Pfeiffer.

Lukas, L. M. 2005. The Impact of Trust and Reputation on the Transfer of Best

Practices. Journal of Knowledge Management . 9 (4): 87-101.

Løwendahl, B. R. 1992. Global strategies for professional business service firms.Unpublished PhD dissertation. Philadelphia, PA: The Wharton School, University

of Pennsylvania.

Løwendahl, B. R. 2009. Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms. 3rd

ed. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.

Løwendahl, B.R., & O. Nordhaug. 1994. Kompetanse i LOOC . Cited in

Løwendahl, B. R & O. Nordhaug et al. OL94 - Inspirasjonskilde for Framtidens

Næringsliv? Erfaringer fra et Megaprosjekt . Oslo: TANO.

Løwendahl B. R., & Ø. D. Revang. 1998. Challenges to Existing Strategy Theory

in a Post-industrial Society. Strategic Management Journal , 19 (8): 755–774.

Løwendahl, B. R., Ø. D. Revang, & S. M. Fosstenløkken. 2001. Knowledge and

Value Creation in Professional Service Firms - A Framework For Analysis.

Human Relations, 54 (7): 911-931.

Page 122





Maister, D.H, 1985. The One-Firm Firm: What Makes It Successful. Sloan

Management Review, 27 (1): 3-14.

Maister, D.H. 1993. Managing the Professional Service Firm. New York: Free

Press.

McCrank, L.J. 2002. Historical Information Science: an Emerging Unidiscipline.

Medford, NJ: Information Today.

McDermott, R. 1999. Learning Across Teams: The Role of Communities of Practice in Team Organizations. Knowledge Management Review, 8: 32-36.

McKenna, C. 2006. The World's Newest Profession: Management Consulting in

the Twentieth Century. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mole, J. 2001. Mind your Manners – Managing Business Cultures in Europe.

London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing London.

Morris, T. 2001. Asserting Property Rights: Knowledge Codification in the

Professional Service Firm. Human Relations, 54 (7): 819-838.

Morris, T., & L. Empson. 1998. Organizations and Expertise: An Exploration of

Knowledge Bases and the Management of Accounting and Consulting Firms.

Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23 (5): 609–624.

Mowery, D. C., J.E. Oxley & B.S. Silverman. 1996. Strategic Alliances and

Interfirm Knowledge Transfer. Strategic Management Journal 17 (winter): 77-91.

Mäkelä, K., H. Kalla, & R. Piekkari. 2007. Interpersonal Similarity as a Driver of

Knowledge Sharing within Multinational Corporations. International Business

Review, 16 (1): 1–22.

Page 123





Nahapiet, J., & S. Ghoshal. 1998. Social Capital, Intellectual Capital, and the

Organizational Advantage. Cited in Empson, L. 2001. Transfer in Mergers

between Professional Service Firm s. Human Relations, 54 (7): 839-862.

Nonaka, I. 1994. A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation.

Organization Science 5 (1): 14–37.

Nonaka, I. 1991. The Knowledge-Creating Company. Harvard Business Review,

69 (6): 96-104.

Nordhaug, O. 1993. Human Capital in Organizations: Competence, Training and Learning . Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.

Nordhaug, O. & K. Grønhaug. 1994. Competence Resources in Firms.

International Journal of Human Resource Management , 5 (1): 89-106.

Orr, J. 1996. Talking about Machines: An Ethnography of a Modern Job.

Ithaca,New York: IRL Press.

Patton, M.Q. 2002. Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd ed. Beverly

Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Pedhazur, E. J., & L. P. Schmelkin. 1991. Measurement, Design, and Analysis:

An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Polanyi, M. 1958. Personal Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Prahalad, C. K., & G. Hamel. 1990. The Core Competence of the Corporation.

Harvard Business Review. 68 (3): 79-91.

Quinn, J., P. Anderson, & S. Finkelstein. 1996. Leveraging Intellect. Academy of

Management Executive.10 (3): 7-27.

Ragsdell, G. 2009. Inhibitors And Enhancers To Knowledge Sharing: Lessons

Page 124





From The Voluntary Sector. Journal of Knowledge Management Practice. 10 (1).

Rasli A., M. Z. Madjid, & A. Asmi. 2004. Factors that Influence Implementation

of Knowledge Management and Information Technology Infrastructure to Support

Project Performance in the Construction Industry. International Business

Management Conference.

Reihlen, M., M. Smets, & A. Veit. 2010. Management Consultancies as

Institutional Agents: Strategies for Creating and Sustaining Institutional Capital.

Schmalenback Business Review 62 (3): 317-339.

Samovar, L. A., Porter, R. E. 2004. Communication Between Cultures. Canada:

Wadsworth.

Sarvary, M. 1999. Knowledge Management and Competition in the Consulting

Industry. California Management Review. 41 (2): 99-107.

Schneider D. J. 2004. The psychology of stereotyping . New York: Guilford Press.

Scholliers, P. 2001. Food, Drink and Identity - Cooking, Eating and Drinking in

Europe since the Middle Ages. Oxford / New York: Berg.

Schön, D.A. 1983. The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in

Action. London: Temple Smith.

Seale, C. 1999. Quality in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 5 (4), 465-

478.

Senge, P. 1996. Leading Learning Organizations. Training & Development . 50

(12): 36-4.

Soley, M., & K. V. Pandya. 2003. Culture as an Issue in Knowledge Sharing: A

Means of Competitive Advantage. Electronic Journal on Knowledge

Page 125





Management . 1 (2): 205-212.

Spender, J.C. 1996. Making Knowledge the Basis of a Dynamic Theory of the

Firm. Strategic Management Journal , 17 (Winter Special Issue): 45-62.

Spencer, L. M., Jr. & S. Spencer. 1993. Competence at Work: Models for

Superior Performance. New York: John Wiley and Sons.

Stabell, C. B. & Ø. D. Fjeldstad. 1998. Configuring Value for Competitive

Advantage: On Chains, Shops and Networks. Strategic Management Journal . 19

(5): 413–437.

Starbuck, W. H. 1992. Learning by knowledge-intensive firms. Journal of

Management Studies, 29 (6): 713–40.

Steenkamp, J-B. E. M. 2001. The role of national culture in international

marketing research. International Marketing Review, 18 (1): 30-44.

Stenbacka, C. 2001. Qualitative Research Requires Quality Concepts of its Own.

Management Decision, 39 (7): 551-555.

Storey, J., D., Ulrich, & P. M. Wright. 2009. The Routledge Companion to

Strategic Human Resource Management . New York: Routledge.

Sveiby, K. E. 1997. The New Organizational Wealth Managing and Measuring

Knowledge Based Assets. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publisher Inc.

Teece, D., G., Pisano, & A. Shuen. 1997. Dynamic capabilities and strategic

management. Cited in Empson, L. 2001. Transfer in Mergers between

Professional Service Firms. Human Relations, 54 (7): 839-862.

Thomas, G. 2011. How to do Your Case Study – A Guide for Students &

Researchers. London: Sage Publications.

Page 126





Toegel, G., & J. A Conger. 2004. 360-Degree Assessment: Time for Reinvention.

Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2 (3): 297-311.

Tsoukas, H. 1996. The Firm as a Distributed Knowledge System: A

Constructionist Approach. Strategic Management Journal , 17 (Winter Special

Issue): 11-25.

Turner, J. 1982. Towards a Cognitive Redefinition of the Social Group. Cited in

Alvesson, M., M. Robertson, & M. Swan. 2001. The Best and the Brightest. The

Role of Elite Identity in Knowledge Intensive Companies. Paper presented at the

Critical Management Studies Conference. July 11-12.

Ulrich, D. 1997. Human Resource Champions – The Next Agenda for Adding

Value and Delivering Results. United Stated: Harvard Business School Press.

Van Maanen, J. 1983. Qualitative Methodology. Beverley Hills: Sage.

Winch, G., & E. Schneider. 1993. Managing The Knowledge-Based Organization:The Case of Architectural Practice. Journal of Management Studies, 30 (6): 923-

938.

Wright, L.W. 1995. Qualitative International Management Research. Cited in

Punnett, B.J. and Shenkar, O., (eds.) Handbook for International Management

Research. Blackwell: Oxford.

Yin, R. K. 2003. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 3rd ed. CA: Sage

Publications.

Yin, R. K. 2009. Case Study Research: Design and Methods. 4th ed. CA: Sage

Publications.

Zanjani, M. S, S. Mehrasa, & M. Modiri. 2008. Organizational Dimensions as

Determinant Factors of KM Approaches in SMEs. World Academy of Science,

Engineering and Technology. 45: 389-394.

Page 127





Internet Sources:

Argyris, C. 1991. Teaching Smart People How to Learn. Available from URL:

pds8.egloos.com/pds/200805/20/87/chris_argyris_learning.pdf [Accessed

10.07.2010].

Bridgespan. 2003. Giving and Receiving Feedback . Available from URL:

http://webconceptsunlimited.com/Samples/GivingandReceivingFeedbackParticipa

ntGuide.pdf [Accessed: 20.08.2011].

Fosstenløkken, S. M. 2007. Enhancing intangible resources in professional

service firms: a comparative study of how competence development takes place in

four firms. Oslo: BI Norwegian School of Management. Available from URL:

http://web.bi.no/forskning/papers.nsf/wSeriesDissertation/6F66FC4D0EEF4D91C

1257341002EA456 [Accessed 08.06.2010].

Hall, E.T. 2011. Nonverbal communicationIntercultural relationsAnthropology.

Available from URL. http://www.edwardthall.com/ [Accessed. 22. 08.2011].

Harvard Business School. 1999. What’s Your Strategy for Managing Knowledge?

Available from URL: http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/0500.html [Accessed

22.08.2011].

Hofstede, G. 2009. Geert Hofstede Cultural Dimensions. Available from URL:

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/ [Accessed 01.05.10].

Innovations Report – Forum for Science, Industry and Business. 2007.

Consultancy firms more interested in billable hours than developing expertise.

Available from URL: http://www.innovations-

report.com/html/reports/economy_finances/report-91911.html [Accessed:

10.06.2011].

Page 128

http://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch18247/pds8.egloos.com/pds/200805/20/87/chris_argyris_learning.pdf

http://webconceptsunlimited.com/Samples/GivingandReceivingFeedbackParticipantGuide.pdf


http://web.bi.no/forskning/papers.nsf/wSeriesDissertation/6F66FC4D0EEF4D91C1257341002EA456


http://www.edwardthall.com/

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/0500.html

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/economy_finances/report-91911.html


http://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch18247/pds8.egloos.com/pds/200805/20/87/chris_argyris_learning.pdf





http://www.edwardthall.com/

http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/0500.html

http://www.geert-hofstede.com/







International Data Corporation (IDC). 2010. The impact of SaaS on the

Professional Services Industry. Available from URL:

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=PRF000009 .

[Accessed: 01.06.2011].

JB Intercultural Consulting. 2003. Communication across cultures-High and Low

Context . Available from URL:

http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html [Accessed. 22.08. 2011].

Ladegaard, G. & C. Syvertsen. 2005. Value Creation in Knowledge Intensive

Firms. Available from URL: http://orgprints.org/6192/1/DP04-05.pdf [Accessed:09.06.2010].

Maister, D. 1985. The One-Firm Firm: What Makes It Successful. MIT Sloan

Management Review. Available from URL: http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-

magazine/1985-fall/2711/the-onefirm-firm-what-makes-it-successful/ [Accessed

01.08.2010]

NationMaster.com. 2011. Economy Statistics. Available from URL:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_com_by_sec_ser-economy-gdp-

composition-sector-services [Accessed: 10.06.2011].

NESH (The National Committee for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and

the Humanities). 2009. Guidelines for Research Ethics in the Social Sciences and

the Humanities. Available from URL:

http://www.etikkom.no/no/Forskningsetikk/Etiske-

retningslinjer/Samfunnsvitenskap-jus-og-humaniora/ [Accessed: 05.08.2011].

Nordenflycht, A.V. 2006. What is a Professional Service Firm…and why does it

matter? Available from URL: http://business.sfu.ca/files/PDF/research/working-

papers/policy/Andrew_vonNordenflycht_Abstract_2.pdf [Accessed 25.05.2010].

Reimers, T. 2011. Mentoring Best Practices – A Handbook . Available from URL:

http://www.albany.edu/academics/mentoring.best.practices.chapter4.shtml

Page 129

http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=PRF000009


http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html

http://orgprints.org/6192/1/DP04-05.pdf

http://sloanreview.mit.edu/the-magazine/1985-fall/2711/the-onefirm-firm-what-makes-it-successful/



http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_gdp_com_by_sec_ser-economy-gdp-composition-sector-services


http://www.etikkom.no/no/Forskningsetikk/Etiske-retningslinjer/Samfunnsvitenskap-jus-og-humaniora/


http://business.sfu.ca/files/PDF/research/working-papers/policy/Andrew_vonNordenflycht_Abstract_2.pdf




http://www.culture-at-work.com/highlow.html

http://orgprints.org/6192/1/DP04-05.pdf














[Accessed: 20.03.2011].

Research Methods Knowledge Base. 2006. Qualitative Validity. Available from

URL: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php [Accessed:

22.07.2011].

Sveiby, K. E. 2001. Measuring Intangible Assets. Available from URL:

http://www.sveiby.com/articles/MeasureIntangibleAssets.html

[Accessed: 20.06.2011].

Western Libraries. 2011. Bibliography – Geert Hofstede. Available from URL:http://www.lib.uwo.ca/ [Accessed 19.07.2011].

Wiley Knowledge for Generations. 2010. Setting the scene – Profile of the

professional service industry. Available from URL:

media. wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/34/04700117/0470011734-1.pdf

[Accessed 14.03.2011].

Ylinenpää, H. & N. Nilsson. 2000. Knowledge Transfer and Organizational

Competence Building - A Case Study of Two Knowledge-Intensive Firms.

Available from URL:

http://www.ies.luth.se/org/Rapporter/AR2000_44.pdf [Accessed 08.06.2010].

Page 130

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php


http://www.lib.uwo.ca/

http://opt/scribd/conversion/tmp/scratch18247/media.wiley.com/product_data/excerpt/34/04700117/0470011734-1.pdf




http://www.ies.luth.se/org/Rapporter/AR2000_44.pdf

http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/qualval.php


http://www.lib.uwo.ca/


http://www.ies.luth.se/org/Rapporter/AR2000_44.pdf





Appendices

Appendix 1: Information letter sent to companies in France

Hi

We are two graduating Master students (MSc in International Management) at BI Norwegian Business School, currently working on our master thesis. The purpose

of the paper is to analyze how professionals (employees) experience and perceive

competence development in professional service firms (PSFs). Mainly, the focuswill be on what contributes and constraints competence development on three

different levels of employees (newly employed, senior- and partner level).

The study is cross-cultural since we have the privilege of one of us studying in

Oslo (BI) and the other in Paris (ESCP Europe). We will explore the similaritiesand the diversity within the views of the professionals on competence in the two

countries.

We hope this could be of interest for you and we are aiming to interview three

employees ranging from newly employed, senior and partner level. The interviewswill have an approximate duration of 30 minutes. We are flexible concerning

where and when these interviews can be conducted. The information will betreated confidential and will not be able to be traced back to the individuals.

With our study we hope to contribute with insight of what your employees

perceive as contributors and/or constraints to competence development. Sincecompetence among employees is essential for high quality service delivery toclients, we view our choice of topic as important.

We would highly appreciate having you in our sample and hope that this would beof interest.

Have a nice day and we look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Maja Øidne [email protected]

+47 959 17 948

Linn Langangen

[email protected]

+47 908 43 351

Page 131









Appendix 2: Information letter sent to companies in Norway

Hei

Vi er to masterstudenter ved Handelshøyskolen BI, Oslo, som i disse dager skriver vår avsluttende oppgave om kompetanseutvikling i kunnskapsintensive bedrifter.

Denne studien vil i all hovedsak kartlegge potensielle fremmere og hemmere av

kompetanseutvikling i slike firmaer. Studien er komparativ siden vi intervjuer ansatte både i Paris og Oslo. Vi vil undersøke forskjeller og likheter i henhold til

de ansattes syn på kompetanseutvikling, i begge land.

I den sammenheng ønsker vi å intervjue minimum tre ansatte i deres bedrift, helst

av begge kjønn og gjerne på tre forskjellige nivåer (nyansatt, senior, partner).Intervjuene vil ha en varighet på ca. 30 minutter og kan gjerne foregå på deres

arbeidsplass og premisser. Eventuelt ønske om konfidensialitet er respektert oginformasjonen fra disse intervjuene vil ikke kunne spores tilbake til

enkeltindivider.

Med forskningsprosjektet ønsker vi å bidra med innsikt i hva deres ansatte føler

kan medvirke til, eller hindre kompetanseutvikling og hva som vil være avviktighet for ledere. Videre, siden kompetansen til hver enkelt ansatt er essensielt

for å kunne levere gode resultater til klienter, vil vi kunne bidra til å gi dere

innsikt i tillegg til å kunne kartlegge hva som eventuelt kan være fallgruver eller bidragsytere til kompetanseutvikling.

Vi håper dette er interessant og vil også kunne tilby dere et ferdig eksemplar avden ferdige oppgaven. Vi ser frem til å høre fra dere.

Med vennlig hilsen,

Maja Øidne Korsen

[email protected]

+47 959 17 948

Linn [email protected]

+47 908 43 351

Page 132









Appendix 3: English General Interview Guide

This information is concerning both this appendix (4), and appendix (5), which

contains the Norwegian general interview guide. Below follows a description of the interview guides used when collecting data from respondents in the respective

firms. The two interview guides reflects approximate descriptions. Each

respondent and situation required adaptation as to how the interview developedand if themes of particular interest surfaced in each interview. The questions were

also adapted in terms of who was being asked – at what level he or she wasemployed. Therefore, the interview guides serves as illustrative examples of

topics and questions central to the interview process.

IntroductionIntroduction of ourselves.

About the study: the reasoning behind and purpose of our project, interviews being conducted on three levels in France and Norway.

About confidentiality and how we will use the information received in interviews.Ask for acceptance of using tape recorder, if used.

Personal Background and work related tasks

Could you please introduce yourself and tell us briefly about your background?(E.g. education, previous work experience, why did you choose to work for this

firm, tenure, development path of career and work related tasks andresponsibilities).

Competence development

Could you please describe your work?

What is your perception of competence development and learning?

How has competence developed been organized to support your career in this

firm?

Are there any particular factors that you consider particularly helpful in your

competence development?(E.g.: IT systems, mentor systems, training, collaboration, daily operations etc.).

Are there any factors that inhibit your personal development in this firm?(E.g.: IT systems, mentor systems, training, collaboration, daily operations, stress,

high pressure etc.).

Does your expectation regarding competence development match your experience

within the firm?

International matters:

Page 133





Could you please tell us about how you view the culture for sharing information

and knowledge in this firm?

Could you please tell us about how the hierarchical structure within the firm, andto what extent you feel it is predominant?

Could you please tell us how you experience differences between layers/levels of professionals in this firm, and how this influences your every day work and

competence development?

At work, how does collaboration with others take place? Do you collaborate with

people outside the firm?

Additional comments:

Is there anything you would like to add to your previous comments?

What did we forget to ask you about?

Is there a possibility that we can contact you at a later stage in case we need to ask

you any further or clarifying questions?

If so, how would you prefer to be contacted? (Via phone/e-mail?).

Thank you for your time!

If you have any questions at a later point in time, please do not hesitate to contact

us.

Page 134





Appendix 4: Norwegian General Interview Guide

Introduksjon:

Introdusere oss selv.Om studien: Begrunnelsen og intensjonen med prosjektet vårt, intervjuer foretatt

på tre nivåer i Frankrike og Norge.

Om konfidensialitet og hvordan informasjonen fra intervjuene vil bli brukt istudien.

Ta opp spørsmålet med båndopptaker hvis dette tas i bruk.

Personlig bakgrunn or arbeidsrelaterte oppgaver og ansvarsområder:

Kan du vennligst fortelle litt om deg selv og din bakgrunn?

(Eksempelvis om utdannelse, tidligere jobberfaring, bakgrunnen for valg av

arbeidsgiver, fartstid, karriereutvikling innenfor selskapet, arbeidsrelatertearbeidsoppgaver og ansvarsområder).

Kompetanseutvikling:Hva legger du i begrepet kompetanseutvikling og læring?

Hvordan har din kompetanseutvikling blitt tilrettelagt i dette selskapet for å støttedin karriere?

Er det noen faktorer/aspekter ved ditt arbeid som du ser på som spesielt viktige for

din kompetanseutvikling? (Eksempelvis: IT, mentor systemer, opplæring/kursing,samarbeid, daglig prosjektarbeid etc.).

Er det noen faktorer/aspekter ved ditt arbeid som du føler har hindret dinkompetanseutvikling? (Eksempelvis: IT, mentor systemer, opplæring/kursing,

samarbeid, daglig prosjektarbeid, press etc.)

Samsvarer dine forventninger til kompetanseutvikling med hva du har opplevd i

dette selskapet?

Internasjonale forhold/Kulturrelaterte arbeidsforhold:

Kan du fortelle litt om hvordan du ser på kulturen for informasjon- ogkunnskapsdeling her?

Kan du fortelle litt om hierarkiet i dette selskapet og om hvor mye eller litefremtredende det er?

Kan du fortelle litt om hvor ”store” forskjellene mellom nivåer (nyansatt, senior

og partner) er, og eventuelt hvordan dette påvirker din hverdag og

kompetanseutvikling?

Hvordan foregår samarbeid med andre på jobb? Samarbeider du med personer utenfor bedriften?

Page 135





Tilleggskommentarer:Er du noe du avslutningsvis har et ønske om å legge til?

Hva føler du vi har glemt å spørre deg om?

Er det i orden om vi kontakter deg på et senere tidspunkt dersom det skulleforekomme tilleggsspørsmål, eller det skulle oppstå et behov for oppklarende

spørsmål?

I så fall, hvordan foretrekker du å bli kontaktet? (Via telefon/e-mail?)

Tusen takk for din deltakelse!

Kontakt oss gjerne hvis du har noen spørsmål på et senere tidspunkt.

Page 136





Appendix 5: Preliminary Thesis Report

master thesis langangen korsen 2011

Documents