Leaand

D

Cas

ading d Cove

Do not c

ss Cent

Work

autonert lea

Johan

cite or q

tre for P

king Pa

omoudersh

ser

n Alvehu

quote w

laurajohan

ww

Professi

per CPS

s folloip pra

rvice fi

us and L

without t

.empson@cin.alvehus@isww.cass.ac.uk

onal Se

SF - 012

owers:cticesirms

Laura E

the auth

ty.ac.uk sm.lu.se k/cpsf

ervice F

2-2014

Indires in pro

Empson

hors’ pe

irms

ect, Ovofessio

ermissio

vert, onal

on

ABSTR

This pa

conting

Based o

accoun

leaders

themes

practice

depend

sustain

retainin

these p

behavio

“relucta

position

literatur

can be

Key wo

RACT

aper asks: I

ent manag

on a cross

ting, consu

ship as prac

s: 1) how am

es, and 2) h

dent. The s

ing legitima

ng control, a

practices ar

ors. Our stu

ant leaders

ns with thei

re on plura

contingent

ords: Lead

In organiza

gerial autho

-case anal

ulting, and

ctice literat

mbiguous

how leade

study identi

acy to lead

and acting

re manifest

udy sugges

” who mus

ir “autonom

al models o

t, construct

dership pra

Ca

ations char

ority, how d

ysis of fou

legal secto

ture by exp

power dyn

rship pract

fies three d

d through m

g politically

ted through

sts that pro

st constantl

mous follow

of leadershi

ted and ne

actice, Profe

ass Centre for P

2

racterized b

do senior p

r global pro

ors, this stu

plicitly addr

amics with

tices are bo

distinctive

market suc

whilst app

h a combin

ofessional

y negotiate

wers”. In so

ip by explo

egotiated.

essionals,

Professional Ser

by extensiv

professiona

ofessional

udy contrib

ressing two

hin organiza

oth context

leadership

cess, enab

earing apo

nation of im

service firm

e and rene

o doing we

oring how le

Power dyn

rvice Firms – Wo

ve individu

als exercise

service firm

butes to the

o previousl

ations affe

t-creating a

p practices:

bling auton

olitical. It de

mplicit, over

ms are led

egotiate the

contribute

eader/follow

namics

orking Paper 01

al autonom

e leadersh

ms in the

e emerging

ly neglecte

ct leadersh

and contex

gaining an

omy whilst

emonstrate

rt, and cov

by suppos

eir leadersh

e to the gro

wer relatio

12 ‐ 2014

my and

ip?

g

ed

hip

xt-

nd

t

es how

vert

sedly

hip

wing

nships

INTRO

Practice

activitie

exercis

authorit

within th

Wallace

analyzin

autonom

how lea

It

concep

have be

al., 201

studies

caused

Rather,

exercis

tempora

2003a;

everyda

analysis

situatio

DUCTION

e-based ap

es of leader

ed (Carroll

ty of leader

hese organ

e & Tomlin

ng how lea

my and con

adership pr

is now und

ptualized as

ecome incr

0; 2012; E

, drawing o

by or resu

, leadership

e of influen

ary, more i

Ladkin, 20

ay experien

s from the

ns (Carroll

pproaches

rs and thei

l, Levy & R

rs has bee

nizational c

son, 2010)

adership is

ntingent m

ractices op

derstood w

s a collectiv

reasingly in

Empson & L

on social th

ulting from

p is unders

nce upon e

insecure, a

010). These

nces and a

individual

et al., 200

Ca

to leaders

r followers

Richmond, 2

en taken for

contexts la

). In this st

practiced

anagerial a

perate in pr

within the sc

ve process

nfluential (C

Langley, Fo

heories of p

the compe

stood as an

each other.

and more s

e approach

activities of

leader and

08; Denis e

ass Centre for P

3

hip have fo

s, the conte

2008; Ladk

r granted a

rgely negle

udy, we ad

in an organ

authority. I

rofessional

cholarly lite

s, and vario

Carroll et a

orthcoming

practice, ch

etency or c

n effect of t

Thus lead

subject to n

hes to lead

f leaders an

d/or followe

et al., 2012

Professional Ser

ocused atte

exts and sit

kin, 2010).

and the und

ected (Den

ddress thes

nizational c

n the proce

settings.

erature that

ous notions

al., 2008; C

g; Gronn, 2

haracterize

haracterist

the interac

dership bec

negotiation

dership focu

nd follower

er to the co

; Gronn, 20

rvice Firms – Wo

ention on t

tuations in

Often, how

derlying po

nis, Langley

se limitatio

context of e

ess we pro

t leadershi

s of plural f

Crevani et a

2002; Ladk

e leadershi

tics of indiv

ctions of ind

comes view

(Alvesson

us on high

rs alike, sh

ontext of pa

002).

orking Paper 01

he everyda

which lead

wever, the

ower dynam

y & Sergi, 2

ns directly

extensive i

ovide insigh

p can be

forms of le

al., 2007; D

kin, 2010). T

p not as so

vidual pers

dividuals an

wed as mo

n & Svening

lighting the

hifting the u

articular so

12 ‐ 2014

ay

dership is

formal

mics

2012;

by

individual

hts into

adership

Denis et

These

omething

ons.

nd their

re

gsson,

e

unit of

cial

Th

deeply

depend

underst

relation

2004; C

noted b

of conte

manner

particul

hierarch

In

which a

authorit

system

profess

(Abbott

delivery

describ

the plur

negotia

In

as pion

increas

his process

contextual

dent” (Walla

tand the co

nships with

Conger, 19

by Wallace

exts, in ord

r. Denis et

arly intrigu

hy is limite

this paper

are charact

ty. In profe

of authorit

sional servi

t, 1988). Th

y of profess

bed as like

ral” (Empso

ate and ren

view of the

eering org

ingly relev

sual and pl

ized pheno

ace & Tom

ontext in w

each othe

98; Kemps

& Tomlins

der to unde

al. (1996:

uing in situa

d, and whe

r we explor

terized by e

essional se

ty is based

ces) rathe

he professi

sional serv

“herding ca

on & Langl

egotiate th

ese compl

anizationa

ant to orga

Ca

lural practic

omenon, w

mlinson, 20

hich leade

er are shap

ster & Parry

son (ibid.),

erstand the

674) sugge

ations of am

ere goals a

re leadersh

extensive i

rvice firms

d on merito

r than hiera

ional worke

vices, are n

ats” (Løwe

ley, Forthc

heir leaders

ex power d

l response

anizations m

ass Centre for P

4

ce-based p

which is “bo

10: 41). It t

rship intera

ed by the c

y, 2011; U

a need for

leadership

est that the

mbiguity …

and techno

hip in such

ndividual a

, especially

cracy (i.e.

archical po

ers, with th

notoriously

endahl, 200

oming), cre

ship positio

dynamics,

es to leader

more gene

Professional Ser

perspective

oth context-

therefore b

actions occ

context in w

hl-Bien, 20

empirical

p-context d

e “study of

… where the

logies are

a context:

autonomy a

y professio

superior sk

ositioning w

heir expecta

difficult to

05). Leader

eating a co

ons in relat

profession

rship challe

erally within

rvice Firms – Wo

e presents

-creating a

becomes ne

cur, as indi

which they

006). There

research in

dynamic in

strategic le

e traditiona

unclear.”

in profess

and conting

onal partne

kill at sellin

within a form

ations of a

lead: a pro

rship is typ

onstant nee

tion to othe

al service

enges whic

n the know

orking Paper 01

leadership

and context

ecessary to

viduals’

y co-exist (B

e is, therefo

nto differen

a more nu

eadership

al power of

sional servi

gent mana

rships, the

ng and deliv

mal bureau

utonomy in

ocess often

pically perfo

ed for partn

er partners.

firms can b

ch are beco

ledge econ

12 ‐ 2014

p as a

t-

o

Bryman,

ore, as

nt types

uanced

seems

f the

ce firms,

agerial

e primary

vering

ucracy

n their

n

ormed “in

ners to

.

be seen

oming

nomy –

specific

to work

Forthco

significa

contem

be gain

profess

and ver

Langley

Ba

accoun

extensi

profess

practice

power d

distincti

success

appeari

leaders

autonom

Th

emergin

power d

profess

cally how to

k collaborat

oming). Pro

ant extent

mporary org

ned from st

sional servi

ry little is kn

y, ibid.).

ased on a

ting, consu

ive individu

sionals exe

e literature

dynamics a

ive leaders

s, enabling

ing apolitic

ship practic

mous follow

he paper p

ng leaders

dynamics a

sional servi

o persuade

tively to se

ofessional s

resolved, o

ganizationa

udying lea

ce firms ha

nown abou

cross-case

ulting, and

ual autonom

ercise leade

by explicit

and the imp

ship practic

g autonomy

cal. It demo

ces enables

wers.

roceeds as

hip as prac

and concep

ce firms, h

Ca

e highly ed

rve the nee

service firm

one of the

al life (Cleg

dership pra

ave been a

ut how lead

e analysis o

legal secto

my and con

ership? Th

tly address

pact of con

ces: gaining

y whilst ret

onstrates h

s senior pr

s follows. F

ctice literat

ptualization

highlighting

ass Centre for P

5

ucated, rel

eds of the

ms have th

most challe

g et al. 200

actices in t

almost enti

dership is p

of four glob

ors, we ask

ntingent ma

is paper co

sing previou

ntext on lea

g and sust

taining con

ow this co

rofessionals

First we hig

ture and its

n of contex

the dearth

Professional Ser

latively aut

organizatio

erefore gra

enging pow

06). There

this contex

rely neglec

performed

bal profess

k: In organi

anagerial a

ontributes t

usly neglec

adership pr

taining legit

trol, and ac

mbination

s to exercis

ghlight som

s limitations

xt. We then

h of empiric

rvice Firms – Wo

tonomous k

on (Empso

appled with

wer dynam

is, therefo

xt. To date,

cted by lea

in this cont

sional servi

izations ch

authority, h

to the eme

cted theme

ractices. It

timacy thro

cting politic

of implicit,

se leaders

me key them

s regarding

n examine l

cal and the

orking Paper 01

knowledge

on & Langle

h, and to a

mics at the h

re, much v

however,

dership sc

text (Emps

ce firms in

haracterize

how do sen

rging leade

es of ambig

identifies t

ough marke

cally whilst

overt, and

hip among

mes within

g the analy

leadership

eoretical wo

12 ‐ 2014

e workers

ey,

heart of

value to

cholars

son &

the

d by

nior

ership as

guous

three

et

t

d covert

g

the

ysis of

in

ork in

this are

especia

the stud

the stud

leaders

LEADE

Drawing

al., 200

everyda

concep

and situ

emphas

produce

“leaders

particul

‘leader’

emphas

influenc

2010).

Th

plural m

be view

phenom

ea. We elab

ally regardi

dy is prese

dy and elab

ship as prac

ERSHIP AS

g on social

01), leaders

ay activities

pts such as

uations (Ca

size proces

ed and per

ship emerg

ar situation

or ‘followe

sis within th

ce each oth

his focus o

models of le

wed as a pr

menon that

borate on t

ng individu

ented. We t

borate upo

ctice theor

S PRACTIC

l practice t

ship resear

s of leader

traits and

arroll et al.,

ssual ‘how

rformed” (D

ges from a

n or contex

ers’ and a p

his approa

her and, th

n the proce

eadership.

roperty of i

t is distribu

Ca

he particul

ual autonom

then exam

on the three

ry are deve

CE: PROC

heory (e.g.

rchers have

rs, thereby

competenc

, 2008). Em

’ questions

Denis et al.

collective

xt, people i

purpose to

ach is there

ereby, exe

ess of lead

According

ndividuals

ted or shar

ass Centre for P

6

ar challeng

my and ma

ine the org

e practices

eloped in th

CESSUAL A

. Bourdieu,

e turned th

shifting foc

cies, towar

mpirical stu

s, aimed at

, 2012: 255

process cr

nvolved in

which the

efore to und

ercise leade

dership is c

g to this per

and their b

red among

Professional Ser

ges of lead

anagerial a

ganizationa

s we have i

he discussi

AND PLUR

, 1990; de

heir attentio

cus from a

rds concret

udies based

t understan

5). Ladkin

reated thro

that proce

ir collective

derstand be

ership (Ca

consistent w

rspective, l

behaviors,

g different p

rvice Firms – Wo

dership in t

authority. N

al context o

dentified. T

on and con

RAL

Certeau, 1

on in recen

bstract and

te and proc

d on this p

nding how

(2010: 177

ough the co

ess who tak

e action is

etter how i

rroll et al.,

with the inc

leadership

but as “a c

people, pot

orking Paper 01

his context

Next, the me

of the four f

The implica

nclusions s

1984; Scha

nt years to t

d individua

cessual ac

erspective

leadership

7–8) stress

onfluence o

ke up roles

directed.” T

ndividuals

2008; Lad

creased int

should no

collective

tentially flu

12 ‐ 2014

t,

ethod of

firms in

ations for

section.

atzki et

the

al level

ctivities

“clearly

p is

ses that

of a

s as

The

kin,

terest in

t simply

id, and

constru

exchan

relation

models

constru

Ad

what th

et al., 2

Within t

al., 201

intercha

al., 201

shared

relation

Conger

process

and at o

Pr

which le

social s

“followe

al. (201

at least

argue, s

ucted in inte

ge theory w

nships betw

of leaders

ucted and n

dopting this

ey have va

2009; Denis

this body o

2), the term

angeably (A

2) these te

among mu

nships are a

r (2003: 1)

s among in

other times

ractice-orie

eadership

situations a

er” are soci

2) highligh

t make ass

scholars “n

eraction” (D

which gene

ween leade

ship acknow

negotiated

s perspect

ariously ca

s et al., 200

of literature

ms shared

Avolio et a

erms broad

ultiple acto

ambiguous

describe s

ndividuals i

s involves u

ented, plura

as a pheno

and context

ially constr

ht an impor

sumptions a

need to pay

Ca

Denis et al

erally assu

ers and the

wledge tha

through int

ive, a grow

lled “collec

01; Gronn,

e, broadly c

, collective

al., 2009). A

dly describe

rs in organ

s and poten

shared lead

n groups w

upward or

al approac

omenon is

ts, and em

ructed in ta

rtant limitat

about, issu

y greater a

ass Centre for P

7

., 2012). T

umes pre-d

ir followers

at leader/fo

teraction.

wing numbe

ctive”, “sha

2002; Pea

categorized

e, and distri

Although th

e a phenom

nizational c

ntially cont

dership as:

which … of

downward

hes to lead

continually

phasizes t

alk and acti

tion of this

ues of powe

attention to

Professional Ser

herefore, u

etermined

s (Graen &

ollower rela

er of schola

red” or “dis

arce & Con

d as “leade

ibuted lead

hey refer to

menon whe

contexts an

tested. For

“a dynam

ften involve

hierarchic

dership, the

y produced

hat identiti

ion. Howev

literature –

er and hier

the underl

rvice Firms – Wo

unlike leade

and stable

Uhl-Bien,

ationships c

ars have b

stributed” le

nger, 2003

ership in the

dership are

o distinct co

ere leaders

nd where a

example,

ic, interact

es peer, or

cal influenc

erefore, hig

d and repro

es such as

ver, in their

– the tende

rarchy. As

lying patter

orking Paper 01

er-member

e hierarchic

1995), plu

can be con

egun to ex

eadership

; Spillane,

e plural” (D

e often use

oncepts (D

ship roles a

uthority

Pearce an

ive influenc

lateral, inf

ce”.

ghlight the

oduced in c

s “leader” a

r review, D

ency to ove

Denis et al

rns of pow

12 ‐ 2014

r

cal

ral

ntingent,

xplore

(Avolio

2005).

Denis et

d

enis et

are

d

ce

fluence

way in

concrete

and

Denis et

erlook, or

l. (2012)

er

relation

issue of

leaders

and the

authorit

little ab

consiste

neglect

contem

So

exampl

interact

Yet the

leader/f

about h

peer gr

where p

support

Tu

leaders

specific

leaders

change

strong e

nships that

f power dy

ship practic

e processes

ty and infor

out how po

ent with mu

t the impac

mporary org

ome micro-

e by exam

tion sequen

assumptio

follower rol

how individ

oup, and h

power dyna

t of their pe

urning expl

ship as prac

cally how it

ship is intrin

e the contex

emphasis o

might influ

ynamics is c

ces, very lit

s by which

rmal powe

ower affect

uch contem

ct of power

ganizations

-level prac

mining how

nces (see e

on within th

les and rel

uals estab

how they co

amics are f

eers.

licitly to the

ctice literat

remains u

nsically a c

xt within w

on context

Ca

uence the e

central to u

ttle is know

leadership

r structures

ts leadersh

mporary the

, presentin

s (Pfeffer, 2

ctice studie

power dyn

e.g. Creva

hese studie

ationships

lish themse

onstruct, ne

fluid and m

e significan

ture is the

unproblema

contextually

hich it is em

, as alread

ass Centre for P

8

emergence

understand

wn about ho

p practices

s. As Denis

hip practice

eorizing on

g an ideali

2013).

s have exp

namics are

ni et al., 20

es is that th

, are prede

elves and c

egotiate, a

managerial

nce of cont

way in whi

atized. As W

y embedde

mbedded.

y highlight

Professional Ser

e of plural le

ding the ph

ow exactly

s both shap

s et al. (ibid

es, interact

n leadershi

zed apoliti

plicitly addr

played out

007, and La

he power d

etermined.

come to be

and sustain

authority is

ext, a seco

ch context

Wallace an

ed activity t

Yet, while

ed, it tends

rvice Firms – Wo

eadership”

henomenon

these dyna

pe and are

d: 267) not

ions, and o

ip which ha

cal and un

ressed issu

t in particu

arsson & L

dynamics, s

As yet ver

e accepted

n these pos

s contingen

ond limitatio

t is concep

nd Tomlins

that also ha

practice re

s to assum

orking Paper 01

” (p. 60). W

n of plural

amics are

shaped by

te: “We stil

outcomes.”

as tended t

nhierarchica

ues of pow

lar situatio

Lundholm,

specifically

ry little is kn

d as leader

sitions in co

nt on the o

on within th

tualized,

on (2010)

as the pote

esearch pu

me the stab

12 ‐ 2014

While the

enacted

y formal

ll know

” This is

to

al view of

wer, for

ons, e.g.

2010).

y

nown

s by their

ontexts

ongoing

he

argue,

ential to

uts a

ility of

pre-give

power d

relevan

address

Tomlins

excepti

pluralist

within a

defined

In

that the

and Wa

in profe

explain

LEADE

PROFE

Conven

definitio

profess

betwee

relation

profess

nudging

en hierarch

dynamics a

nt where au

sed leader

son’s (2010

ons. Howe

tic profess

a pre-existi

d.

this paper

e healthcar

allace and

essional se

ed below.

ERSHIP IN

ESSIONAL

ntional mod

on, must ha

sional servi

n “leaders”

nships are r

sional peers

g, and pers

hical relatio

and the ass

uthority is c

rship in suc

0) studies

ever, while

ional conte

ng bureauc

r, we focus

re and educ

Tomlinson

ervice firms

PROFESS

LS

dels of lead

ave followe

ce firms, s

” and “follo

replaced b

s (Adler et

suading” (G

Ca

onships an

sumption o

contingent

ch contexts

in the heal

power rela

exts are su

cratic hiera

s on the con

cational co

(2011) are

s manageria

SIONAL S

dership are

ers (Avolio

such as law

owers” is pr

y more am

al., 2008).

Greenwood

ass Centre for P

9

d positiona

of stable hie

(Denis et a

s. Denis et

thcare and

ations amo

bject to co

archy, whe

ntext of pro

ontexts app

e indeed co

al authority

ERVICE F

e predicate

et al., 200

w, consultin

roblematic

mbiguous a

. As a resu

d et al., 199

Professional Ser

al power st

erarchical

al., 2010). F

al’s. (2006

d education

ngst the le

onstant neg

re leader/fo

ofessional

proached b

omplex in t

y is more e

FIRMS: INF

ed on the as

9; Howell a

ng, or acco

as traditio

nd negotia

ult “leadersh

90: 748). In

rvice Firms – Wo

tructures. T

relations b

Few studie

6) and Wall

n sectors a

eadership g

gotiation, th

follower rel

service firm

by Denis et

terms of au

explicitly co

FLUENCIN

ssumption

and Shami

unting firm

nal hierarc

ated relation

hip is a ma

n spite of th

orking Paper 01

This neglec

become par

es to date h

lace and

re importa

group within

hey take pl

ations are

ms. While n

al. (1996,

uthority stru

ontingent, a

NG AUTON

that leade

ir, 2005). In

ms, the disti

chical dyad

nships amo

atter of guid

heir distinc

12 ‐ 2014

ct of

rticularly

have

nt

n such

ace

broadly

noting

2010)

uctures,

as

NOMOUS

ers, by

n

inction

ic

ongst

ding,

ctiveness,

profess

scholar

follower

Forthco

firm lea

Th

interrela

manage

Experie

(Miner e

for prof

speciali

perpetu

firm – te

profess

Th

conting

authorit

rest wit

control,

the orga

operatin

selecte

office a

sional servi

rs, perhaps

rship in set

oming). Put

adership lite

he distinctiv

ated organ

erial autho

enced profe

et al., 1994

fessionals t

ist technica

uated by th

echnical kn

sionals (Em

his emphas

ent manag

ty is “colleg

h the profe

, i.e. behav

anization (

ng core (M

d (and ofte

and can be

ce firms ha

s because o

ttings wher

t simply, th

erature is t

ve challeng

nizational c

rity (Empso

essionals r

4; Von Glin

to preserve

al expertise

e fact that

nowledge a

mpson, 200

sis on relat

gerial autho

gial and fra

essional pe

vior control

Ouchi, 198

Mintzberg, 1

en elected)

deposed if

Ca

ave receive

of the diffic

re they ten

he fundame

hat it does

ges of prof

haracterist

on & Lang

require, or

now, 1988)

e the right t

e to the de

the core v

and client r

01).

tively exten

ority (Gree

agile” (Hinin

eer group ra

led through

80), is the n

1983). Sen

) by their pe

f they fail to

ass Centre for P

10

ed very littl

culty of isol

d to conve

ental proble

s not really

fessional s

tics: extens

ley, Forthc

at least ex

. This auto

to make ch

livery of cu

value-creati

relationship

nsive indivi

nwood et a

ngs, Brown

ather than

h common

norm and p

ior executi

eers to form

o retain the

Professional Ser

e direct att

lating notio

erge (Emps

ematization

exist.

ervice firm

sive individ

coming; Min

xpect, exten

onomy is le

hoices abo

ustomized

ing resourc

ps – are oft

idual auton

al., 1990).

n & Greenw

the individ

values, tra

power rests

ves in prof

mal leaders

e support o

rvice Firms – Wo

tention from

ons of lead

son & Lang

n of the pro

leadership

dual autono

ntzberg, 19

nsive indivi

egitimated b

ut how bes

profession

ces of a pro

ten proprie

nomy is ass

In professio

wood, 1991

dual (Marcs

aditions, an

s with profe

fessional s

ship roles f

of their pee

orking Paper 01

m leadersh

ership and

gley,

ofessional

p derive fro

omy and co

979, 1983)

idual auton

by the requ

st to apply

al services

ofessional

etary to spe

sociated w

onal servic

1) and dee

son, 1962)

nd commitm

essionals i

ervice firm

for a fixed

ers (Empso

12 ‐ 2014

hip

d

service

om two

ontingent

.

nomy

uirement

their

s. It is

service

ecific

with

ce firms,

med to

. Clan

ment to

n the

s are

term of

on,

2007). A

“mainta

their int

governa

Empson

the cha

As a re

conting

W

espous

may be

expertis

Diefenb

expertis

Throug

socializ

Anders

leaders

appropr

a partne

Chittipe

firms pr

(Alvess

informa

As Mintzbe

ains power

terests effe

ance within

n, 2003), b

aracteristics

sult, the fo

ent. They c

While profes

e a commi

e more or le

se in the de

bach & Silli

se conveys

h the appre

zation and t

on-Gough

ship role by

riate behav

er and lead

eddi, 1991;

rovide prof

son and Wi

al control ov

erg (1989:

only as lon

ectively.” T

n the tradit

but is also c

s of profess

ormal autho

can only le

ssional serv

itment to in

ess explicit

esign and d

ince, 2011

s an inform

enticeship

training pro

et al., 200

y explicitly c

viors, expli

der in a pro

Thompso

fessionals w

llmott, 200

ver autono

Ca

181) states

ng as the p

his is partic

ional profe

common in

sional part

ority of sen

ead by cons

vice firms m

ndividual au

t and are o

delivery of

; Robertso

mal authorit

model of s

ocess in pr

0, 2001, 20

coaching m

cating and

ofessional

n, 1967). In

with an org

02; Mills, 19

omous prof

ass Centre for P

11

s, a senior

professiona

cularly so i

essions suc

n corporate

nership go

ior executi

sent.

may explic

utonomy, h

often derive

profession

n & Swan,

y which ca

skills transf

rofessional

002), the s

more junior

embodyin

service firm

n this way,

ganizationa

940), thus e

fessionals.

Professional Ser

r executive

als perceive

n partners

ch as law a

e profession

overnance

ves in prof

citly eschew

hierarchies

ed from the

nal services

2003). In o

arries more

fer, which i

service fir

senior profe

r profession

ng the belie

m (Denis e

leaders w

ally sanctio

enabling th

rvice Firms – Wo

in a profes

e him or he

hips, the p

and accoun

nal service

(Empson &

fessional se

w formal hie

s neverthele

e perceptio

s (Brown e

other word

e weight tha

is fundame

rms (Alveh

essional in

nals and ro

efs and beh

t al., 2007;

within profes

oned vocab

hem to exe

orking Paper 01

ssional ser

er to be se

prevailing fo

nting (Gree

e firms whic

& Chapman

ervice firm

erarchy an

ess persist

n of superi

et al., 2010

ds, professi

at formal po

ental to pro

us, Forthco

effect exe

ole modelin

haviors req

; Gioia &

ssional ser

bulary of m

ercise a deg

12 ‐ 2014

rvice firm

rving

orm of

enwood &

ch mimic

n, 2006).

s is

nd

t. These

ior

;

ional

osition.

ofessional

oming;

rcises a

ng

quired of

rvice

otives

gree of

Em

is abou

individu

maximiz

partner

senior p

to build

Denis e

the indi

In

executiv

network

skills in

(2010: 2

many tr

such th

other po

interest

leaders

Forthco

and pol

The cur

literatur

dynami

mpson’s (2

t managing

ualistic des

ze. The ele

is a manif

partners’ re

the conse

et al., 2007

vidual part

order to a

ves need t

ks of influe

order to n

297) state,

raditional p

ey are sub

olitical aren

t groups.” W

ship proces

oming) to d

litical pract

rrent study

re: first, the

cs on lead

2007) study

g the delica

sire to self-a

ection of in

festation of

esponsibilit

ensus they

7) and, in so

tner and th

chieve this

to be acute

ence among

avigate an

, profession

professiona

bject to the

na to achie

While it has

sses within

date no em

tices in this

y seeks to a

e assumpti

ership prac

Ca

y of partne

ate balance

actualize a

ndividuals t

f the partne

ty, within th

need to im

o doing, re

e collective

s, Empson

ely aware o

g their colle

nd negotiate

nal service

al partnersh

lobbying, s

eve agreem

s been sug

a professi

pirical stud

s context.

address im

on of stabl

ctices, and

ass Centre for P

12

r dynamics

e between

and the coll

o the leade

ership’s co

he delegate

mplement th

esolve the i

e partnersh

and Langl

of the implic

eagues an

e these ne

e firms are

hips are co

scheming,

ment on de

ggested tha

onal servic

dies have b

mportant lim

e hierarchy

d second, t

Professional Ser

s argues th

preserving

lective part

ership roles

llective will

ed authorit

hat collectiv

nherent te

hip.

ey (Forthco

cit power s

d to have

etworks of i

“uniquely p

onsensus-b

and barga

cisions am

at power an

ce firm (Em

been condu

mitations in

y and negl

he lack of

rvice Firms – Wo

hat leaders

g each indi

tnership’s d

s of manag

l. It is the m

ty structure

ve will (Ad

nsion betw

oming) arg

structures a

highly dev

nfluence. A

political env

based dem

aining whic

mong divers

nd politics

mpson & La

ucted into p

the leader

ect of the i

insight into

orking Paper 01

hip in this c

ividual part

desire to p

ging and se

managing a

e of the par

ler et al., 2

ween the ne

gue, senior

and shifting

veloped pol

As Morris e

vironments

mocracies b

ch occurs in

se individua

are centra

angley,

power dyna

rship as pra

impact of p

o how leade

12 ‐ 2014

context

tners’

rofit

enior

and

rtnership,

2008;

eeds of

r

g

litical

et al.

s …

but as

n any

als and

l to the

amics

actice

power

ership

practice

contribu

firms. B

paper a

conting

RESEA

While le

debate

very fra

adopted

profess

practice

uncons

influenc

these te

manage

leaders

Th

method

studies

which c

domina

therefor

es are both

ute to the n

Based on a

asks: In org

gent manag

ARCH DES

eadership i

regarding

agmented r

d to concep

sionals in o

es encomp

cious actio

ce the orga

erms, we s

ement, and

s and leade

he emphas

dological im

“to capture

cannot be s

ated the lea

re, engage

h context-c

nascent lite

a cross-cas

ganizations

gerial autho

SIGN

is a widely

its nature.

research fie

ptualizing l

order to infl

pass delibe

ons and un

anization. B

sidestep pro

d focus ins

ership.

sis on proc

mplications

e the truly

studied thro

adership lite

e in detailed

Ca

reating and

erature on

se analysis

s character

ority, how d

researche

Numerous

eld (Yukl, 1

leadership

uence thei

erate tactics

intended c

By concept

oblematic d

tead on ho

essual and

. There are

dynamic q

ough the s

erature (Co

d analysis

ass Centre for P

13

d context-d

leadership

of four glo

rized by ex

do senior p

ed topic, the

s definition

1989; Bark

is to focus

r peers, su

s (Kipnis et

consequenc

tualizing lea

distinctions

ow practice

d plural lea

e growing d

qualities of

urvey-base

onger, 199

of micro ac

Professional Ser

dependent.

in the con

obal profess

xtensive ind

professiona

ere is a lon

s and dive

ker, 1997).

s on the pra

uperiors an

t al., 1980;

ces, all of w

adership a

s between

es contribut

dership pra

demands fo

leadership

ed method

98). Practic

ctivities, em

rvice Firms – Wo

. In so doin

ntext of prof

sional serv

dividual au

als exercise

ng establis

rging resul

The appro

actices use

nd subordin

Denis et a

which colle

and leaders

e.g. leade

te to the co

actices has

or qualitativ

p” (Gordon

s which ha

ce-based le

mphasising

orking Paper 01

ng, it also s

fessional s

vice firms, t

tonomy an

e leadershi

hed and on

lts have to

oach we ha

ed by senio

nates. Thes

al., 1996) a

ectively ser

ship practic

rship and

onstruction

s importan

ve leaders

& Yukl, 20

ave traditio

eadership s

g thick desc

12 ‐ 2014

seeks to

service

this

nd

ip?

n-going

led to a

ave

or

se

as well as

rve to

ces in

n of

t

hip

004: 364)

nally

studies,

criptions

of how

situatio

In

using in

possible

practitio

practitio

more di

concea

this pap

The em

cases (

selecte

relation

cases w

issues o

this pap

represe

extensiv

method

Fo

intervie

globally

highly f

leadership

nal factors

this study

ndirect met

e to unders

oners” (Car

oners’ poin

irect metho

lment of ac

per.

mpirical bas

(see Table

d because

nships and

were select

of leadersh

per were se

ented more

ve individu

ds used in t

or the two s

ws in multi

y integrated

federated s

p actually h

s that result

, we follow

thods for a

stand “the

rroll et al.,

nt of view. M

ods (e.g. o

ctions; this

sis of this s

1). The ca

e they are p

logic amon

ted from a

hip in profe

elected bec

e extreme m

ual autonom

the cases w

smaller glo

iple countr

d basis. By

structure an

Ca

appens in

t in a dece

w the logic o

pproaching

way practi

2008: 367

Many pract

bservation

s is indeed

study consi

ases were c

particularly

ng construc

broader se

essional se

cause : (a)

manifestati

my), and (b

were most

obal firms s

ries (16 in t

y contrast,

nd leaders

ass Centre for P

14

the workpl

ntered und

of inquiry u

g practices

ce is evoke

) and thus

tices may a

s), as they

the case w

sts primari

chosen by

suitable fo

cts” (Eisen

et case stu

ervice firms

) the empir

ons of con

b) the meth

consistent

studied (un

total) as the

the two lar

hip dynam

Professional Ser

lace (Sven

derstanding

used by e.g

s. By interv

ed ‘everyda

understan

also be diff

y may conc

with two of

ly of 144 in

theoretica

or illuminat

nhardt & Gr

udies which

s. The case

rical contex

ntingent ma

hods emplo

t.

nder 5,000

e leadersh

rger global

ics were m

rvice Firms – Wo

ningsson et

g of leaders

g. Denis et

viewing pra

ay’ and ‘in

d practices

ficult to act

cern the wit

the practic

nterviews f

l sampling,

ing and ex

raebner, 20

h we condu

es that form

xt was mos

anagerial a

oyed and in

employees

ip dynamic

(accountin

more self-co

orking Paper 01

t al., 2012)

ship.

al. (1996,

ctitioners it

the mome

s from the

tually study

thholding o

ces discuss

from four d

, i.e. “cases

xtending

007: 27). T

ucted to ex

med the foc

st relevant

authority an

nterview sa

s) we cond

cs operated

ng) firms op

ontained so

12 ‐ 2014

and

2010),

t is

ent’ by

y with

or

sed in

ifferent

s are

The four

xamine

cus of

(i.e. they

nd

ampling

ducted

d on a

perated a

o our

intervie

similarit

specific

ws focused

ties betwee

c to individu

d on a sing

en cases ra

ual cases.

Ca

gle country

ather than

ass Centre for P

15

y. Cross-ca

to identify

Professional Ser

ase analysis

and interp

rvice Firms – Wo

s was cond

pret idiosyn

orking Paper 01

ducted to d

ncratic issu

12 ‐ 2014

draw out

es

TASTU Firm

Firm

Firm

Firm

Firm

TO

BLE 1 UDY DATA

m D

m A L

m B Cg

m C Ae

m D Ae

TAL

Description

Law firm, 5,00

Consultancy globally

Accounting fiemployees in

Auditing firm,employees in

Ca

00 employee

firm, 1,500 e

rm, global firn the UK

global firm wn Sweden

ass Centre for P

16

es globally

employees

rm with 11,00

with 2,000

Professional Ser

NumbInterv 34

31

00 37

42

144

rvice Firms – Wo

ber of views

orking Paper 01

SupportingData

Observatiodocuments Documents

Observatiodocuments Observatiodocuments

12 ‐ 2014

g

ns,

s

ns,

ns,

In

The ma

answer

to evok

“What d

think of

a leade

encoura

Brinkma

intervie

Th

interpre

theoreti

made in

Pierce (

refining

thus “se

2010: 2

Th

associa

the view

and are

not broa

context

terviews w

ain focus w

rs to highly

ke the interv

does the co

f yourself a

er of [Firm X

aging the in

ann, 2009)

ws were tr

he data we

etation of d

ical analys

nterpretatio

(1906), is t

g theoretica

eeks out un

289).

he emphas

ated with ex

w of develo

e shaped b

adly prese

t of ambigu

were loosely

was to captu

directive q

viewees’ o

oncept of le

as a leader

X] and why

nterviewee

). Interview

ranscribed.

ere analyze

ata and fo

sis as well a

ons. The lo

to go from

al concepts

nexpected

sis through

xtensive in

oping a bet

by organiza

nt in leade

uous leade

Ca

y structure

ure the poi

questions.

opinion, exp

eadership

of [Firm X

y?”. More im

es to develo

ws were typ

.

ed abductiv

rmulation o

as re-interp

ogic of abd

data, to the

s as well as

data and c

out the ana

ndividual au

tter unders

ational cont

er/follower r

r–follower

ass Centre for P

17

d and narr

nt of view

Thus, our q

perience an

mean to yo

X], and “Wh

mportant, h

op and dee

pically sche

vely (Alves

of overarch

pretations a

uctive ana

eory, back

s re-interpr

creates new

alysis proc

utonomy an

standing of

text. We th

relations ge

relationshi

Professional Ser

ratively orie

of the resp

questions w

nd standpo

ou in the co

en did you

however, w

epen their

eduled for 9

son & Skö

hing theme

and recons

lysis, draw

k to data, an

reting empi

w concepts

cess was o

nd continge

how leade

herefore se

enerically b

ps.

rvice Firms – Wo

ented (Cza

pondent rat

were broad

oint. Examp

ontext of [F

u start to co

were the fo

response (

90 to 120 m

ldberg, 200

es were sub

siderations

wing on prag

nd so forth

irical data.

s to explain

n leadersh

ent manag

ership prac

arched for

but arose s

orking Paper 01

arniawska,

ther than g

d and open

ple questio

Firm X]?”, “

onsider you

llow-up qu

(Kvale &

minutes. Al

09), i.e.

bjected to

s of the alre

gmatist ph

h, continual

Abductive

n them” (A

hip-related

gerial autho

ctices both

practices t

specifically

12 ‐ 2014

1997).

getting

n in order

ons were

“Do you

urself as

estions,

ll

eady

ilosopher

lly

analysis

gar,

themes

ority, with

shape

that were

y from the

Th

interest

firms, w

process

identify

evidenc

evidenc

were el

recogni

was to

firms pr

not ove

refine th

overlap

concep

“interac

“enablin

appeari

“gaining

emergin

Th

our data

The firs

In the s

he interpre

t in the them

which emer

s. The seco

ing qualitie

ce of intere

ce of auton

ected or se

ized as lea

compare th

roposed by

erlooked an

he coding a

pping or wh

ptualization

cting politic

ng autonom

ing apolitic

g and susta

ng from the

he process

a from diffe

st step was

second step

tive proces

me of role

rged as com

ond step in

es, behavio

est in leade

nomy once

elected for

aders by fel

he data to

y Empson a

ny substant

and condu

hich needed

. So, for ex

cally” evolve

my whilst m

cal.” “Role-

aining legit

e data.

s of re-inter

erent persp

s based on

p, we analy

Ca

ss we adop

modeling a

mmon acro

ncluded sys

ors or other

ership or be

becoming

r formal lea

llow partne

the nine m

and Langle

tive theme

ct further a

d to be exp

xample, ea

ed to expre

maintaining

modelling

timacy thro

rpretation a

pectives an

direct inte

yzed the da

ass Centre for P

18

pted consti

as a part o

oss all case

stematic w

r requireme

eing offered

partner, e

adership po

ers regardle

manifestatio

ey (Forthco

s. The four

analysis to

panded to e

arly stage c

ess the par

g control” a

profession

ough marke

and inter-re

nd interpret

raction and

ata separa

Professional Ser

tuted four

of leadershi

es during t

working thro

ents of bei

d opportun

xplanation

ositions, an

ess of form

ons of leade

oming) to e

rth step inv

identify ide

encompas

codes such

radoxes ide

nd “interac

al behavio

et success”

esearcher i

t common

d co-analys

ately, each

rvice Firms – Wo

steps. The

ip in profes

he initial da

ough the da

ng elected

nities to dis

s of why in

nd why indi

mal position

ership in p

ensure that

volved retu

eas that we

s a broade

h as “enabl

entified in t

cting politic

urs” becam

” to reflect

interaction

themes fea

sis of the d

working on

orking Paper 01

e first step w

ssional serv

ata collecti

ata from al

partner (in

splay leade

ndividual pa

ividuals we

n. The third

rofessiona

t our analys

urning to th

ere linked a

er

ing autono

the data to

cally whilst

me focused

the empha

enabled u

aturing in a

data by bot

n our own

12 ‐ 2014

was an

vice

ion

l cases,

ncluding

ership),

artners

ere

d step

al service

sis had

e data to

and

omy” and

o become

d on

asis

us to see

all cases.

th of us.

cases,

respect

discuss

develop

regardin

analytic

interspe

analytic

as well

at the h

interpre

ORGAN

AND C

The cen

charact

explain

typically

cases t

though

quotes

intervie

As the S

autonom

tively. In th

sed and ref

ped and ref

ng the rela

cal process

ersed with

cal process

as rejected

heart of inte

etive creativ

NIZATIONA

ONTINGE

ntral purpo

terized by e

ed in the re

y present w

hat form th

Firm B wa

from interv

wee numb

Senior Par

my and ma

e third and

fined the co

fined the th

ation betwe

s consisted

periods of

s, interpreta

d during th

erpretive re

vity (Weick

AL CONTE

NT MANA

ose of this s

extensive i

eview of th

within profe

he basis of

as not in fac

views (lette

ber).

rtner from F

anagerial c

Ca

d fourth ste

oding. Betw

heoretical f

een ‘practic

d of periods

individual

ations were

he process.

esearch str

k, 1989).

EXT: EXTE

AGERIAL A

study was

individual a

he literature

essional se

this study

ct a partne

er and num

Firm A sum

control:

ass Centre for P

19

eps, the cod

ween the th

foundation

ces’ and ‘co

s when we

interpretive

e tested se

. While see

rategies, se

ENSIVE IN

AUTHORIT

to examine

autonomy a

e, these org

ervice firm

are typica

ership in leg

mber in brac

mmarizes th

Professional Ser

ded data w

hird and fo

for the an

ontext.’ Thu

were enga

e work. As

everal time

emingly cha

erving both

NDIVIDUAL

TY

e leadershi

and conting

ganizationa

partnership

l professio

gal form. T

ckets afterw

he tradeoff

rvice Firms – Wo

were re-rea

ourth step,

alysis sepa

us, the last

aged in dire

s a consequ

s, and idea

aotic at tim

h to enable

L AUTONO

ip practices

gent mana

al characte

ps. In this r

nal service

able 2 pres

wards deno

f between i

orking Paper 01

ad, and we

both of us

arately, par

t steps of t

ect collabo

uence, dur

as were ge

mes, this pr

e and restra

OMY

s in organiz

agerial auth

eristics are

respect the

e firms part

sents illust

otes firm a

individual

12 ‐ 2014

rticularly

he

oration

ring the

enerated

rocess is

ain

zations

hority. As

both

e four

tnerships,

trative

and

Pa

br

ce

The sen

within th

hierarch

power d

W

st

th

lea

ex

to

as

co

artners like

rothers… Y

entre. (A7)

nse of a pr

he partners

hy is fluid,

dynamics.

We have no

rong emph

at. What w

adership (e

xperienced

introduce

ssignments

ommercially

e to carry th

You can’t h

rofessional

ship. As an

and that le

administra

hasis on hie

we do have

emphasis a

d and have

the young

s, a form of

y. (D35)

Ca

he idea of a

ave too mu

communit

n interview

eadership p

ative or org

erarchies o

e is a profes

added). An

contacts, w

er colleagu

f leadershi

ass Centre for P

20

a partnersh

uch formal

ty is mainta

ee from Fi

practices e

ganizationa

or reporting

ssional com

nd it emana

who have s

ues and ma

p is require

Professional Ser

hip as a kin

ity or perce

ained throu

rm D expla

merge from

al leadersh

g structures

mmunity an

ates from o

strong clien

ake them a

ed, both pr

rvice Firms – Wo

nd of band

eived corpo

ughout the

ains, one im

m within th

ip in the se

s and such

nd in that w

older collea

nt relations

able to take

rofessional

orking Paper 01

of happy

oratism fro

firms, and

mplication i

ese ambig

ense of put

h. We don't

we find som

agues who

ships. And

e on these

ly and

12 ‐ 2014

om the

not only

is that

uous

tting a

t have

me sort of

are

in order

TABLE 2ORGANI

Fir

m A

Fir

m B

Fir

m C

Fir

m D

2 IZATIONAL

Extensive I Interviewer:over you? Partner: NotInterviewer:power over Partner: I do

The CEO anDirectors, Elot of those coordinatingthink we neecoordinationsure that coorganizationnot managinkind of thing So it’s not ait’s about (legiving peopnobody has

This compatelling anyonwere some set of peoplconsulting bend, with a needs to befinding out athe managemine or anyperson whasolving the p

CONTEXT:

Individual A

Does anyon

t as far as I’m Does anyonyou? on’t think so.

nd ChairmanExecutive Com

positions areg or communed supervisinn and about gohesion is insn, but definiteng, not policig. (B29)

about followineaders) enable outlets…. to follow any

ny is not basne else whatengineers ore designing t

business starclient who ha

e solved. Andabout this proer for that jobyone else’s bt to do, or hoproblem. (D2

Ca

PROFESSIO

Autonomy

ne have powe

m concernedne think they

(A8)

n, Board of mmittee etc. e really nicating - I dong. It’s more guiding or maside the ely not controng - no not th

ng in that senbling and direBecause frayone. (C9)

sed on anyont to, as if therr any other limthe jobs. … Trts at the otheas a problemd the consultaoblem becom. And then it usiness to te

ow to go abou25)

ass Centre for P

21

ONAL SERV

Con

er

no. have

The that throhappinflupoworga

… a

on’t about aking

olling, hat

I thinposisomto gepartyou to bewha

nse, ecting, nkly

My eif yoMy eget aservgrouteam

ne re mited The er

m that ant mes

is not ell this ut

It’s nambmorclea

Professional Ser

ICE FIRMS

ntingent Man

interesting tyou find thatugh other pepen by essen

uencers) whower has a diffeanizations. (A

nk we recognition in the fir

mething the paet a view of wners). I say –don’t want me a partner a

at we all love

experience oou stop refresexperience isa license to lvices but it acup. We’ve sems stop follow

not clear whabiguous circlere important tar. (D28)

rvice Firms – Wo

nagerial Aut

hing in this rot you can’t ac

eople… You cntially workin

o in turn influeerent meaninA7)

nize that anyrm is in a serartners ask ywhere we ne– I’m your seme in this roleand focus on to do best. (

of authority isshing it. I thins that you caead from aboctually has toen people gewing them. (C

at it looks likee of partners,than others, b

orking Paper 01

thority

ole (of Seniochieve anythcan only mak

ng with this gence the wideng I think to o

yone in a leadrvant leadersyou to do … Sed to go fromrvant leader e I’m more thclients becaB8)

s that it lasts ank of it as a licn, for a very ove in profes

o come from yet killed very C1)

e at the top. T, and some pbut this is an

12 ‐ 2014

or Partner) is ing except ke things roup (of key er group, so

other

dership hip role. It’s So I’m happym (the and frankly i

han happy jususe that’s

about an houcense to leadlimited time,

ssional your peer quickly if the

There is this partners are ything but

y

f st

ur d.

eir

What th

three se

environ

which w

is implic

leader b

The sec

tension

leaders

underst

political

PRACT

THROU

Our ana

necess

is this w

precond

Yo

bu

hen are the

ections exa

nment of ex

were strong

cit and is a

by your pe

cond leade

within the

ship practic

tood intuitiv

lly whilst ap

TICE 1: GA

UGH MARK

alysis dem

ary first to

which enab

ditions for b

ou always

usiness you

e implicatio

amine the t

xtensive ind

gly present

a requireme

ers: gainin

ership prac

partnersh

ce is covert

vely by ind

ppearing a

AINING AN

KET SUCC

onstrates t

gain the re

bles a profe

being perc

generate r

u will alway

Ca

ons for lead

three leade

dividual au

t in all four

ent for bein

ng and reta

ctice is ove

ip: enabling

t, denied o

ividuals ide

apolitical.

ND RETAIN

CESS

that, in ord

espect of y

essional to

ceived as a

respect if y

ys generat

ass Centre for P

22

dership pra

ership prac

utonomy an

the cases

ng accepte

ining legitim

rt, clearly u

g autonom

r at least n

entified by

NING LEG

er to gain a

your colleag

have visib

a potential l

ou are a "h

te respect.

Professional Ser

actices in s

ctices ident

nd continge

analyzed.

d (and in s

macy to lea

understood

my whilst re

ot acknow

their peers

ITIMACY T

and retain

gues throug

bility and in

eader. As

heavy hitte

(A13)

rvice Firms – Wo

uch a cont

tified as dis

ent manage

The first le

some cases

ad through

d as coexis

etaining con

wledged exp

s as effecti

TO LEAD

legitimacy

gh your pro

fluence, bo

one intervi

r". If you b

orking Paper 01

text? The fo

stinctive to

erial autho

eadership p

s elected)

h market su

sting in a dy

ntrol. The t

plicitly but

ive leaders

y to lead, it

ofessional

oth necess

iewee expl

ring in lots

12 ‐ 2014

ollowing

the

ority and

practice

as a

uccess.

ynamic

hird

s: acting

is

work. It

sary

lains:

of

In all of

most im

lead. Ta

f the cases

mportant an

able 3 pres

s in the curr

nd fundame

sents a sel

Ca

rent study,

ental requi

ection of re

ass Centre for P

23

success in

rement for

epresentat

Professional Ser

n the mark

r gaining an

tive quotes

rvice Firms – Wo

ketplace em

nd retaining

from all ca

orking Paper 01

merges as b

g the legitim

ases.

12 ‐ 2014

by far the

macy to

Fir

m A

Pathe Onpe I thbecclie

Fir

m B

LeaI nepa YoyouYoon Evaropeopra

Fir

m C

Toas or adv ThthrrelaTh I'vehaveasof goowo

Fir

m D

Thcommato … Ththe Whcon(D

GAINING

artners tend toey respect as

ne of the reasrceived to be

hink a lot of thcause those ent and so onadership in tecessarily harticularly resp

ou can't be a ur colleagues

ou have to haly propose b

veryone on thound the partople who areactice. (B2) be the persoChairman, ywhatever it isvancement. (

ey earn the rrough enhancationship thaey have the

e dealt with sving won thasiest one eithmajor client)od partner. Y

ork. (C18) e role of the mpany. Hereanagers in anbecome a suget you to do

ose who are ey are good t

hat is particunsultants. An12)

& RETAININ

o want to be s business ge

sons I think we a successfu

he leadershippeople have

n and in the ehis firm is a fave been thepected as a c

leader withos as a succe

ave a demonsut also dispo

he global ExCtnership, youe perceived w

on who actuayou've got thes, that's what(C7)

right to get incing the valuat we didn’t hrespect of th

some of our mat. I'm also sther. And, eve. ...So if I put

You know, on

manager is, e, I’d say, theny sense. Rauccessful cono fun things.

leaders in thtax lawyers. (

lar of the orgnd they contin

Ca

NG LEGITIM

led by partnenerators. (A

why people wul Banking pa

p in a firm is e the credibiliend all that wfunction of one best consultclient relation

ut having cressful client estrated track

ose. (B27)

Com has alreu would not ewithin the firm

ally runs somere because t people resp

nto one of thoe of the partnave before, oe partners be

most difficult ill currently then now I’ve bt my little egone of the top

in this busine leader playsather it is the nsultant. GooAnd earn a l

his organizati(D5)

ganization is tnue consultin

ass Centre for P

24

TABLE 3

MACY TO LEA

ers and in faA14)

were happy toartner… I ran

linked to youty, those peo

we do is ultimnes credibilitytant in our firnship person

edibility as a xecutor, I dorecord of ha

eady been anexpect an eyem as being ve

mething: eitheyou've been

pect first and

ose positionsnership becaor won a majecause they’

audits. So I'vhe partner onbecome heado hat on for apartners, I su

ess, less imps a bigger rolclearly shinin

od, successfulot of money.

ion are not th

that those whng on a full ti

Professional Ser

AD THROUG

ct they tend

o have me asn a lot of our

ur practice anople are in th

mately directey as a profesrm but I’m res – without tha

practitioner ion't think youraving delivere

n office leadeebrow to be rery strong pe

er runs a func outstandingforemost in

s through ... dause they’ve jor piece of w’re recognize

ve been the n (name of md of the audita moment I wuppose, and

portant than ile … That is,ng people whul tax consult. That’s what

hat because

ho become leme basis eve

rvice Firms – Wo

GH MARKET

to want to be

s Senior Partkey relations

nd the positioe market, the

ed towards clssional, in whspected as aat I cannot le

n this firm. Sr proposals ced, of being s

er. And they'reraised at theierformers in t

ction, runs a with clients. our firm. So

doing fantastieither develo

work and doned for doing th

partner on (nmajor client) a

practice; I'mwas sort of, yo

one that can

in for exampl people who

ho, in their watants who sht we ultimatel

they are goo

eaders are then though the

orking Paper 01

T SUCCESS

e led by partn

tner, becauseships and so

on in the marey actually knients. (A1)

hat we do – I a professionaead. (B11)

So if you're nocarry as muchsomebody wh

e people whor appointmenheir market o

service line, Whether it'sthat's the key

ic stuff with coped a client ne that consishat. (C14)

name of majoand that's not

m just going oou know, seen get out ther

le a manufacdon’t have to

ay of being, sow a way of ly want to do

od leaders bu

hose who areey are mana

12 ‐ 2014

ners who

e I was on. (A7)

rket now the

don’t think al and

ot seen by h weight. ho cannot

o generally nt - the or in their

or ends up s leadership y to

clients,

stently...

or client) t the

onto (name en to be a re and win

cturing o be show how being that

o.(D25)

ut because

e good gers.

Market

“outstan

icing on

as bring

establis

W

retainin

such as

importa

Le

an

on

re

Yet, as

‘technic

significa

work in

2004). S

image o

ways, th

as succ

are mor

success is

nding with

n the cake.

ging in wor

shed clients

While succe

ng the legiti

s quality of

ant.

eadership i

nd you nee

nly way you

espected by

demonstra

cal’ profess

ant indicato

general is

Showing m

of the comm

hen, marke

cessful in s

re than jus

s about “be

clients” (C

” (A4). Tha

rk, either by

s or by ope

ss in the m

imacy to le

f advice an

in a firm th

ed to be cre

u can be cr

y your part

ated in Tab

sional com

or of fitnes

s ambiguou

market succ

mitment to

et success

selling work

st highly sk

Ca

eing strong

C7) and “ea

at is, marke

y winning s

ening up en

market is th

ead, the mo

d ability to

at is based

edible vis-à

redible is if

tners. (B15

ble 3, mark

petencies.

s for leade

us and the

cess in term

o the firm a

comes to

k, aspiring

illed techni

ass Centre for P

25

performer

arn(ing) a lo

et success

substantial

ntirely new

he most fun

ore ‘technic

delivery ex

d on profes

à-vis your c

f you are e

5)

ket success

Why is thi

ership? One

results diff

ms of e.g.

nd its value

symbolize

leaders de

icians but h

Professional Ser

rs in the ma

ot of money

is defined

and high-

w areas of b

ndamental

cal’ aspects

xemplary s

ssional valu

co-partners

xercising t

s ultimately

s market s

e reasons

ficult to clea

billable hou

es (Alvehu

profession

emonstrate

have a bro

rvice Firms – Wo

arket” (B2)

y” (D25). “E

within thes

profile ass

business.

element of

s of profes

service, are

ues require

s. And in th

he profess

y serves as

success se

may be be

arly evalua

urs provide

us & Spicer

nal proficie

e to their co

ader persp

orking Paper 01

, having be

Everything

se firms pr

ignments f

f gaining a

ssional prac

e also deem

es a lot of r

he long term

sion in a wa

s a litmus t

en as such

ecause prof

ate (Alvess

es an unam

r, 2012). In

ncy. By be

olleagues th

pective of c

12 ‐ 2014

een

else is

rimarily

from

nd

ctice,

med

respect

m, the

ay that is

est for

h a

fessional

on,

mbiguous

many

eing seen

hat they

client

needs a

to comm

Th

ultimate

aspect

success

work ha

worked

colleag

I t

de

th

The gai

has bee

in the p

promote

experie

I d

as

it’,

cla

and, by imp

mercial suc

he partners

ely generat

notwithsta

sful in the m

ard. In orde

hard and

ues.

think that p

ecision ma

ey are goin

ining of leg

en through

past. Comm

ed to posit

ence with a

did more bi

sk people t

, so therefo

assic mista

plication, th

ccess.

s value an

te profits a

nding, ther

market. It d

er to gain le

have made

professiona

king and a

ng through

gitimacy the

it all, and

mercial suc

ions of aut

a less politic

illable hour

to do some

ore they fo

ake of cutti

Ca

he comme

individual

nd reputat

re are also

demonstra

egitimacy,

e the perso

al service p

uthority fro

h. (C2)

ereby take

is willing to

ccess must

thority. One

cally astute

rs than any

ething, you

llow that. T

ng right ba

ass Centre for P

26

rcial acume

partner’s c

ional bene

strong sym

tes to colle

potential le

onal sacrific

practitioners

om someon

s on a very

o do so aga

be mainta

e Firm A pr

e colleague

y other pra

get a lot m

The bankin

ack on his p

Professional Ser

en needed

commercial

fits for them

mbolic asp

eagues tha

eaders mu

ces they w

s … will ac

ne that they

y concrete

ain. But it i

ained. This

ractice hea

e’s.

ctice group

more respe

g guy who

practice an

rvice Firms – Wo

d to lead th

l success b

mselves al

ects assoc

at you know

st show th

will be askin

ccept almos

y think und

embodied

s not enou

continues

ad contrast

p head… I

ct if they th

o's very, ve

nd becomin

orking Paper 01

eir fellow p

because it

so. This pe

ciated with

w what it m

at they hav

ng of their

st unlimited

derstands t

form. The

ugh to have

after being

ts his own

always find

hink ‘well h

ry good, m

ng full-time

12 ‐ 2014

partners

should

ecuniary

being

eans to

ve

d

the things

leader

e done so

g

d if you

e's doing

made a

e

m

do

Showin

firm is v

Howeve

non-par

abilities

Th

in

But eve

a found

to be pr

authorit

PRACT

As note

partner

In

as

anagemen

oing that. Y

ng that you

vital if your

er, market

rtners inter

s. As a part

hey may be

the sector

en if, accor

dation of leg

romoted an

ty.

TICE 2: EN

ed in the in

said, “Fran

essence,

s you do it

nt. And that

You have to

can “still c

colleague

success is

rviewed in

tner in Firm

e the guys

r, but does

rding to som

gitimacy on

nd accepte

NABLING A

troduction,

nkly nobod

nobody int

and delive

Ca

t doesn't w

o be able to

cut it” and d

s are to en

s an imprec

Firm D in p

m C expres

with the be

it actually

me partner

n which ind

ed by their

AUTONOM

, a core as

dy has to fo

terferes reg

r high qual

ass Centre for P

27

work in a fir

o show you

demonstrat

ntrust you w

cise proxy

particular e

ssed it;

est industr

equate to

rs, it is “just

dividuals a

peers to le

MY WHILS

pect of pro

ollow anyon

garding wh

lity. (D24)

Professional Ser

m like ours

u can still c

ting your co

with formal

for leaders

expressed

ry capability

leadership

t credentia

re able to d

ead the in t

T RETAIN

ofessional w

ne” (C9). O

hen you wo

rvice Firms – Wo

s. You do lo

cut it. (A11

ontinual co

authority t

ship capab

discontent

y, they may

p? That’s ju

als”, these c

develop the

he absenc

ING CONT

work is aut

One in Firm

ork and how

orking Paper 01

ose credib

)

ommitment

to lead the

ility. Sever

t with their

y have a b

ust credent

credentials

e informal

ce of forma

TROL

tonomy. A

m D explain

w you work

12 ‐ 2014

ility

t to the

m.

ral of the

leaders’

ig client

ials. (C9)

s provide

authority

l

Firm C

ned:

k, as long

But this

degree

are doin

reputati

appear

some e

anarchi

profess

Ul

that the

perform

ultimate

firm is t

perpetu

autonom

authorit

Pa

sa

th

isn

This me

during t

s comment

of manage

ng the wor

ion of the p

to seek to

extent acco

ies operatin

sional servi

ltimately th

e activities

mance targe

ely one of t

to maintain

uating the p

my whilst r

ty, is summ

artners say

ay ‘it’s chao

e money is

n’t within c

eans that fo

their trainin

about auto

ement supe

rk and doin

partnership

maximize

ommodate

ng on a ha

ce firms.

he leaders

of individua

ets as agre

the most im

n control wh

perception

retaining co

marised by

y ‘you’re to

otic, get tig

s going dow

control of th

ormal man

ng process

Ca

onomy ma

ervision: ho

g it to a su

p? Certainly

it; and lea

this perspe

aphazard b

do exercis

al partners

eed by the

mportant le

hilst minim

of autonom

ontrol withi

the Senior

o tight’ and

ghter’. If the

wn, you ca

he Senior P

nagement is

s, younger

ass Centre for P

28

y be some

ow else ca

ufficiently h

y partners

ders within

ective withi

asis; they a

e a degree

s are aligne

partnershi

eadership p

izing the p

my. This ba

n an enviro

r Partner in

d they say

e money is

an’t do anyt

Partner. (C

s minimize

partners ar

Professional Ser

ewhat dising

an partners

igh standa

espouse th

n the firms

in their rhe

are highly

e of control

ed with the

p. As demo

practices w

erception o

alancing ac

onment of

n Firm C.

‘get looser

going up,

thing. But t

1)

ed. Instead

re to some

rvice Firms – Wo

genuous a

s be sure th

ard to prote

he rhetoric

acknowled

etoric. Yet t

successful

, primarily

strategic g

onstrated i

within a prof

of being m

ct, between

contingent

r’. So you g

you can do

the money

, just as th

e extent gui

orking Paper 01

as it does im

hat their co

ect the colle

c of autono

dge this an

these firms

l global

around en

goals and

in Table 4,

fessional s

anaged an

n enabling

t manageri

get looser a

o what you

going up o

ey were m

ided by mo

12 ‐ 2014

mply a

olleagues

ective

my, and

d to

s are not

suring

service

nd

al

and they

u like. If

or down

entored

ore

experie

the info

interest

mechan

D (see

An expe

of expe

respons

I t

ab

th

jus

be

to

enced partn

ormal hiera

ts of the pa

nisms or si

above), in

erienced p

erienced an

sibilities as

think the yo

bout what t

ey will eith

st coming

est out of p

do. So it s

ners that th

rchy, with

artnership a

mply throu

the “profes

partner from

nd less exp

s leaders a

ounger par

the firm is a

her follow o

up with the

people. I th

sort of happ

Ca

hey particu

partners ac

as a whole

ugh encour

ssional com

m Firm A re

perienced p

nd followe

rtners want

as a whole

or not, beca

e prompts a

ink that’s w

pens. (A8)

ass Centre for P

29

larly respe

ccepting co

e, whether i

ragement a

mmunity” th

eflects on t

partners wh

rs:

t you to spe

e doing and

ause it’s no

and ideas t

what they e

Professional Ser

ct. In this w

onstraints o

imposed th

and rhetoric

hey “find so

he distincti

hen it come

end more t

d … to prov

ot telling the

to maximiz

expect som

rvice Firms – Wo

way leader

on their ac

hrough info

c. As put b

ome sort o

ion betwee

es to their

time (than

vide though

em what to

ze the busin

me of the m

orking Paper 01

rship occur

ctions in the

ormal discip

by a partne

of leadersh

en the expe

roles and

them) think

ht leadersh

o do; it’s ac

ness and g

more senior

12 ‐ 2014

rs within

e

plining

r in Firm

ip” (D35).

ectations

king

hip which

ctually

get the

r partners

TABLE 4ENABLIN

Fir

m A

F

irm

B

Fir

m C

F

irm

D

4 NG AUTONO

Enabling A You can’t recan say whahope peoplepeople you who are mothe businesscontrol the c [The Chairmmanagemenright. If I looto do some and it’s not w

One of the tabout the ormuch respowill allow it. have to go aimportant assure that weextent the caorganizationgot? (C6) Most of us kmove towardbusiness anevery partneothers care going to do may interferand so on, tbusiness. (D

OMY WHILS

Autonomy

eally tell peopat you’re goine will agree wcan least tellst important s. Because tclient relation

man’s] classicnt in this firmk at my last tmanagemenworked. (B17

things that I hrganization isnsibility as yoBut they don

and take it. Aspect of leade mine to theapabilities ofn because wh

know what tods common g

nd agreeing oer works, thavery little abosomething s

re, but how ythat’s each aD6)

Ca

ST MAINTAIN

ple what to dong to do and with it ... and what to do afor the succehey are the o

nships. (A17)

c line is ‘I don’… And I thinthree years,

nt stuff in [cou7)

have always s that you takou want. Andn’t offer it to yAnd I think an

ership is to m fullest possif the people ihat else have

o do anyway. goals for the on those. Butat’s somethingout. Sure, if ypecial, then oou work withnd everyone

ass Centre for P

30

NING CONTR

M

o. You then the are those ess of ones who )

Btocbhae

n’t want nk he’s I’ve tried untry]

Wpawgp

liked ke as d people you, you n make ble n the

e we

AaTdts

Things

t how g that you’re others

h clients ’s

Isintaincsninht

Professional Ser

ROL

Maintaining

Because we ao have a mocan’t just simbecause you hard earned cand balancesentrepreneur

We’re all leadpart of the stoand that’s whwe went througuess what, tpressure’s on

At the same tare peers, theThere do needecisions mahat sort of thstep in and sa

’d say part ofsome things bndividual shoasks. If they nstead of on charge for thasomething weno) administrn the sense thierarchies ohings. We do

rvice Firms – Wo

Control

are the size wre regulated ply go off anare deprivingcash. So thes and I think tialism. (A9)

ders…that’s tory and that’shat I expect thugh the globathere was non, they expec

time even thoere do need ed to be tougade on whereing. … knoway no, yes. (C

f the leadersbecome morouldn’t have tdid, they’d sclient work,

at time. It is be can chargerative or orgathat we put ar reporting ston't have tha

orking Paper 01

we are now, set of rules. d do what yog other peopre has to be that stops a b

the narratives exactly whahem to say. Bal financial c

o argument. Wct me to lead

ough all the pto be decisioh things don

e we’re goingwing when yoC14)

hip is to ensure efficient. Eto handle all pend their timand then we

better that thee for. … (But anizational leaa strong emptructures andt. (D35)

12 ‐ 2014

we have … You

ou want ple of their checks bit of

, that’s at I say But when risis, When the . (B33)

partners ons made. e or to invest, u have to

ure that ach routine

me on that cannot ey do we have adership hasis on

d such

Leaders

leaders

firms. T

these a

comme

generic

I t

se

an

we

wa

While c

directio

“inspira

comme

should

in every

Thus, w

in the c

more le

ship “sort o

ship, many

They refer t

are commo

ent from Fir

c in charact

think leade

ense of dire

nd people.

e be better

ant to work

common, ta

on” (C8) is v

ation” and “

ents by inte

achieve (c

yday work

while profes

context of th

eadership is

of happens

present a

to concepts

n themes i

rm C demo

ter and cou

rship here

ection, visio

It’s about t

r than the o

k with us? (

alking of “s

vague and

“strategy” (

erviewees r

cf. Carroll &

practice (A

ssionals ca

he firms is

s needed:

Ca

s”, yet whe

more conv

s such as “

n popular

onstrate, so

uld apply in

is about a

on, ambitio

trying to ar

other firms?

(C14)

etting the r

abstract a

e.g. C14 a

rehearse g

& Levy, 200

Alvesson &

an certainly

not particu

ass Centre for P

31

n interview

ventional vi

“vision” and

notions of

ome intervi

n any organ

number of

on, purpose

rticulate wh

? Why is it

right tone,

and other s

above) are

eneric talk

08). This ki

& Sveningss

y talk the le

ularly clear

Professional Ser

wees are ex

iew of the r

d “direction

leadership

ewee’s sta

nizational c

f things. I t

e that reso

hat is differ

that you a

setting a v

imilarly vag

also comm

k about lead

ind of talk i

son, 2003c

eadership t

r. Thus, som

rvice Firms – Wo

xplicitly ask

role of lead

n”. This is n

p in genera

atements a

context.

hink it is ab

onates with

rent about o

as a client o

vision, (and

gue terms

mon. Large

dership and

is, howeve

c; Svenings

talk, what t

me intervie

orking Paper 01

ked about

dership wit

not surprisi

l. As this ill

are indeed v

bout provid

the other

our firm, w

or partner w

d) strategic

such as “a

ly these kin

d what lea

r, difficult t

sson et al.,

this actually

ewees state

12 ‐ 2014

hin these

ing as

lustrative

very

ding a

partners

why would

would

ambition,”

nds of

dership

to enact

, 2012).

y means

e that

Lo

it.

sh

The pro

partner

Control

subtle p

PRACT

The las

is implic

apolitica

appear

profess

behavio

present

abhorre

profess

ots of peop

But they a

how them t

oblem, how

s as interfe

is maintai

political ski

TICE 3: INT

st of the thr

cit and Pra

al, is cover

to be apol

sionals with

or. The sub

ted as thre

ence of pol

sed belief th

ple here are

are. They d

there was a

wever, is th

ering with t

ned in sub

lls.

TERACTIN

ree practice

actice 2 is o

rt. In order

itical (acco

hin the firm

btle and co

ee distinct b

itical beha

hat effectiv

Ca

e crying ou

do what the

a better wa

at such ov

their autono

btler and les

NG POLITI

es identifie

overt, Prac

to be acce

ording to no

). Yet thes

overt nature

but intertwi

vior, 2) ado

ve leaders

ass Centre for P

32

ut for leade

ey do but if

ay of doing

vert leaders

omy and th

ss obtrusiv

CALLY W

ed is perhap

tice 3, inte

epted by th

otions of po

se individua

e of this thi

ned sets o

option of p

are “above

Professional Ser

rship, you

f somebody

it, they’d f

ship activity

hus be met

ve ways – a

WHILST AP

ps the mos

racting pol

eir peers a

olitical beh

als are in fa

rd practice

of beliefs an

olitical lang

e politics”.

rvice Firms – Wo

know, they

y could ins

follow that.

y could be

t with resis

and, accord

PPEARING

st subtle. W

itically whi

as leaders,

havior as de

act engagin

e becomes

nd behavio

guage and

orking Paper 01

y just don’t

pire them a

(C9)

perceived

stance or d

dingly, this

G APOLITIC

Whereas Pr

le appearin

profession

efined by

ng in highly

clearer if

ors: 1) profe

practices,

12 ‐ 2014

t realize

and

by

isdain.

s requires

CAL

ractice 1

ng

nals must

y political

essed

and 3)

TABLE 5INTERACPart 1: PIf somebdiminishe This firm One of thyou becacorporate I mean ththe firm w[slams haneed to dterms of Part 2: AThe role they ema The prevwere domnumber oinfluencepromises You goveconstituti (One of tedgy andHe had wyou are gsaying) ‘wpulling thPart 3: B(You neein my viepolitical, Sometimis. He’s vsome of player in genuine It’s typicaright thin I think it’spersonalvery brigan analyt

5 CTING POLI

Professed abody has a poed within the

is a structur

he things thaause they doe, because I'

his organizatwho will say fand on table]do along the what they th

Adoption of involves us b

ail us or call u

vious electionminant charaof the more se…. It was alls being made

ern by your mional power t

the candidated challengingworked out thgoing to attrawe’ll knock dheir weight.’(CBelieving effed to be) straew, the best wyou lose a lo

mes my sensevery modest those things that way at aand clean. (A

al of the partng. And so the

s all about tru, this is the vht, very inteltical way, it’s

ITICALLY Wbhorrence oolitical score firm. (B1)

re where crea

t is great abon't want to dom almost co

ion is no diffefrom quite an], ‘do you thinway?’… Andink people wpolitical lanbeing seen aus we have t

n for Senior Pacters within tsenior partnel closed doore to various s

mandate andthat’s given t

es in the elecg of all the cahat in order toact the more jdown some oC3) fective leadeaight with peoway of playinot of the trust

e would be (Sabout it, quitthat might b

all. … it’s simA19)

ners who've ey don't get i

ust… Peopleview, and tholectual, quiet

s quite a cold

Ca

WHILST APPEof political beto settle and

ating enemie

out the firm iso something.mpletely apo

erent to mann early age tonk I’m in the d they’re rega

will want to heguage and p

as acting as to call back a

Partner therethe organizat

ers including trs – smoke fisenior people

your persono you. (A7)

ction campaigandidates ando win enoughjunior partne

of the more se

ers to be “abople even if yng it… If you’rt (A34).

Senior Partnee self-effacine under the h

mply because

been in the finvolved in po

e who just tellose people hatly spoken bu way but it’s

ass Centre for P

33

EARING APehaviour that agenda

s or politickin

s that there's.... It's one ofolitical. (B23)

y others. Theo you, particuframe to be arded as quitear and what practicesthe servants and we have

was a bit of tion and (perthe outgoinglled rooms –

e to get them

nal credibility

gn for Chairmd at times agh votes his beers you appeaenior partner

bove politicsyou tell them re seen as be

er) doesn’t neng, and he hiheading of cre his own mo

firm for quiteolitics. But th

l it straight, inave the higheut articulate, wnot personal

Professional Ser

OLITICAL

a becomes tra

ng is wholly u

s no vindictivef the reasons

ere are peopularly over a Managing Pate pushy, willthey think pe

of the partneto help them

a power strurson) held sw Senior Partn lots of politic

m to support (

and authorit

man), his videggressive towest opportunal to their desrs who are ea

s”.bad things, ieing slippery

ecessarily alwmself doesn’reeping as in

otivations in th

a long time, hey are aware

n a non-persoest respect, liwill just tell yl, he’s trusted

rvice Firms – Wo

ansparent, th

unproductive

e politics abos I could neve

ple who are cbeer or over artner or Senl be more poeople will wa

ers. We have, be seen to

uggle betweeway on the baner who had cking etc. etcperson). (C6

y not by virtu

eo and manifwards the incuity was the msire for improarning a load

f you’re straiy, just saying

ways unders’t attach such

n slightly sinishis world are

that they're ae of stuff goin

onal way, it’sike (person),

you it straightd. (A12)

orking Paper 01

hat person is

. (B21)

out people wher survive in a

learly very amr a meal or ovnior Partner, wlitical in their

ant to vote for

our constitube helpful. (A

en two individasis of suppoquite a lot of

c. etc. – a var)

ue of some ki

festo were thumbent leade

more junior paoved profitabd of money bu

ght with peothings to be

stand how infh great imporster. He is noe so, I think, v

actually tryingng on. (C12)

s not vindictiv is a straight t, it’s not pers

12 ‐ 2014

ho upset a

mbitious in ver a chat what is it I

r views in r. (A2)

ents, when A34)

duals who ort from a f riety of

ind of

he most ership … artners. If ility (by ut not

ple that’s, highly

fluential he rtance to ot himself a very

g to do the

ve, it’s not forward,

sonal, it’s

In all of

behavio

serving

of the p

To

sc

de

as

be

This pro

becaus

leaders

political

election

politicia

consen

groups,

acknow

use to d

Intervie

organiz

of powe

f the firms s

or (e.g. “I h

behavior o

partnership

o me politic

cenes. It sm

eliver fait a

s someone

ehaviors. (B

ofessed ab

e professio

s need a hig

l parties, e

n hustings,

an, a leade

sus among

, and to off

wledge this

describe th

ewees, ther

zational pol

er as well a

studied inte

hate politics

or acting to

p as a whol

cs smacks

macks of p

ccompli or

e undermin

B11)

bhorrence o

onal partne

gh degree

lections ar

and talk o

r within a p

g his collea

fer incentiv

political di

heir role an

refore, perc

litics within

as ownersh

Ca

erviewees

s.” (B12)).

o advance

e:

of alliance

eople engi

r in ways th

ing anothe

of politics (

erships to s

of political

re held, req

of “constitue

professiona

agues, to m

ves to indiv

mension w

d behavior

ceive that t

n profession

hip in these

ass Centre for P

34

expressed

Politics is t

your indivi

e building in

neering ag

hat become

er person. I

(see Table

some exten

skill to infl

quiring the

ents” and “

al service f

make trade

iduals to le

within these

rs of their c

there is so

nal partner

e firms. As

Professional Ser

d an abhorr

typically de

dual intere

n the corrid

gendas, wh

e disruptive

would like

5: Part 1)

nt resemble

luence the

issuing of

“the elector

firm needs

-offs betwe

end him or

e firms imp

colleagues

mething di

rships, refle

one interv

rvice Firms – Wo

rence of ap

escribed in

ests rather

dors, in offi

hich creep

e. Or politic

e to think w

is particula

e political p

ir colleagu

manifestos

rate”. Seco

to build an

een compe

her their s

plicitly in the

(see Table

stinctive ab

ecting the d

viewee in F

orking Paper 01

pparent po

terms of s

than the in

ces behind

up on the f

cs could m

we don’t hav

arly remark

parties and

es. Firstly,

s, the organ

ondly, as w

nd sustain

eting intere

upport. Le

e language

e 5: Part 2)

bout the na

distributed

irm C expr

12 ‐ 2014

litical

self-

nterests

d the

firm and

anifest

ve those

kable

d their

as with

nizing of

with a

st

aders

e they

).

ature of

nature

ressed it:

I t

of

th

lev

ph

This ap

privileg

leaders

whilst th

themse

allow th

persuad

themse

Th

be

be

hi

As dem

politics”

(A19) ra

think the le

f cadre of h

ere is som

vel of politi

harmaceuti

pparent par

es skillful p

s persuade

hey are ris

elves in the

hem a degr

de their pe

elves perso

he partners

est – for the

elieve that

m or her. (

monstrated

”. To win th

ather than

vel of polit

highly paid

mething abo

ics, which y

icals comp

radox (of d

politicians)

their peers

ing to the t

e role of foll

ree of form

eers that the

onally (thou

ship as a w

em and on

and trust th

B23)

in Table 5

he trust of t

“slippery” (

Ca

ics and pe

(partners)

out needing

you wouldn

pany. (C5)

enigrating

can be rec

s that they

top of their

lowers bec

mal authority

ey are amb

ugh, of cou

whole trusts

nly for them

hat, then th

: Part 3, ef

their peers

(A34), “cre

ass Centre for P

35

rsonality h

… people

g to keep a

n’t get if we

political be

conciled by

y are not pe

r organizati

cause they

y over the

bitious for t

rse, the tw

s the leade

m, for the go

here's no re

ffective lead

s, leaders m

eeping” and

Professional Ser

ere is diffe

who own t

all 500 part

e were an

ehavior wh

y recognizi

ersonally a

ions. Their

trust these

partnershi

the partner

wo are not m

er, that he's

ood of the

eason to p

ders must

must be see

d “slightly s

rvice Firms – Wo

erent becau

the client re

ners happy

engineerin

ilst creating

ng that the

mbitious o

peers are

e individua

p. These in

rship rathe

mutually ex

s going to r

partnershi

put any othe

be seen to

en as “gen

sinister” (A

orking Paper 01

use you ha

elationship

y which bri

ng company

g a structu

e more skill

r “pushy” (A

willing to c

ls sufficien

ndividuals

r than for

xclusive).

resolve it fo

p. As long

er kind of h

o be “above

nuine and c

19). Leade

12 ‐ 2014

ve a sort

ps. So

ings a

y or a

ure which

lful

A2),

cast

ntly to

or the

as they

hold on

e

clean”

ers must

convinc

behavio

W

po

pa

ar

Yet indi

to work

political

persona

Global

apparen

these fi

It

an

ou

an

or

ca

ce their pee

or is conce

We have peo

olitically to

artners will

re more like

ividuals op

k politically

l skills – wh

al ambition

Head of H

nt paradox

rms.

is importan

nd political

ut of empat

nd unspoke

rganization

an’t have in

ers that the

eptualized w

ople in lea

keep their

recognize

ely to crash

perating in a

to keep the

hether they

ns or their a

uman Reso

x of denigra

nt to disting

savvyness

thy and the

en, and jus

n … Withou

nfluence. (A

Ca

ey are not “

within these

dership po

position…

that, and i

h and burn

a highly po

eir position

y are utilizi

ambitions f

ources, wh

ating politic

guish betw

s, which is

e ability to

st what goe

ut it you are

A19)

ass Centre for P

36

“political” in

e firms.

ositions who

The one w

is more like

n. (C4)

oliticized en

n, may in fa

ng them co

for the firm

ho was not

cal behavio

ween the so

absolutely

see and ab

es on sort o

e in real tro

Professional Ser

n the crude

o don’t app

who does (l

ely to susta

nvironment

act be depl

onsciously

as whole.

herself a p

or whilst pri

ort of politic

y essential.

bsorb and

of implicitly

ouble beca

rvice Firms – Wo

e sense in

pear to be

eadership)

ain the role

t who do n

oying high

or not, or t

An intervie

partner) rec

ivileging po

cal ego, wh

And that s

understand

y. I think is

use if you

orking Paper 01

which polit

having to w

) more natu

e. And the o

ot appear t

hly sophistic

to fulfill the

ewee in Fir

conciles th

olitical skill

hich doesn’

savvyness

d what is s

critical in t

don’t have

12 ‐ 2014

tical

work

urally,

others

to have

cated

eir

rm A (the

he

within

’t work,

is borne

spoken

his

e it you

The nee

partner

but it is

crude w

downpl

fact be

form the

Quite th

denigra

DISCUS

FOLLO

Returni

extensiv

profess

profess

practice

ambigu

leaders

Th

service

conting

they are

organiz

ed to conti

put it, auth

important

way in whic

ay the polit

of very pol

e basis of l

he contrary

ating blatan

SSION AN

OWERSHIP

ng to the u

ve individu

sionals exe

sional servi

e literature

uous power

ship practic

he paper h

firms that

ent manag

e manifeste

zational con

nuously re

hority “lasts

to seem a

ch political

tical nature

litical. Con

leader legi

y; by downp

nt political e

ND CONCL

P AND DIS

underlying

ual autonom

ercise leade

ce firms th

by explicit

r dynamics

ces are bot

as identifie

emerge fro

gerial autho

ed, and su

ntext in pro

Ca

einforce aut

s about an

political wh

behavior is

e of the firm

sequently

timacy (Pra

playing the

efforts, an

LUSIONS:

SPLAYING

research q

my and con

ership? Ba

his study ha

tly address

s within org

h context-c

ed three dis

om the con

ority. Table

mmarises

ofessional s

ass Centre for P

37

thority is ac

hour if you

hile so doin

s understoo

ms. Behavi

ideas of pr

actice 1), a

e politicalne

image of p

ALLOWIN

RELUCTA

question, in

ntingent ma

sed on a c

as contribu

sing previou

ganizations

creating an

stinctive le

ntext of ext

e 6 identifie

their implic

service firm

Professional Ser

cknowledg

u stop refre

ng. It can b

od within th

or not fram

rofessional

are not thre

ess of certa

professiona

NG FOR AU

ANT LEAD

n organizat

anagerial a

cross-case

uted to the

usly neglec

s affect lead

nd context-

adership p

ensive ind

es these, h

cations for

ms.

rvice Firms – Wo

ged by inter

eshing it” (C

be argued,

hese firms

med as “po

lism and m

eatened wi

ain behavio

alism is ma

UTONOMO

DERSHIP

tions chara

authority, h

analysis o

emerging l

cted theme

dership pra

-dependent

practices w

ividual auto

ighlights th

power dyn

orking Paper 01

rviewees; a

C1, see Ta

therefore,

actually se

litical” can

meritocracy,

thin these

ors and by

aintained.

OUS

acterized by

how do sen

f four globa

leadership

es of : 1) ho

actices, an

t.

ithin profes

onomy and

he manner

namics and

12 ‐ 2014

as one

able 2),

that the

erves to

still in

, which

firms.

y

y

nior

al

as

ow

d 2) how

ssional

d

in which

d

TABLE 6THREE L Practice

Gaining aretaininglegitimacthrough msuccess Enablingautonomretaining

Interactinpoliticallyappearinapolitical

6 LEADERSHI

e M

and

cy to lead market

I

g my whilst

control

O

ng y whilst ng l

C

IP PRACTIC

Manifestatio

mplicit

Overt

Covert

Ca

CES IN PROF

on ImpliPowe PartnindividIndividiffere

Partnautonwill ulcomm Build opponactingpartne

ass Centre for P

38

FESSIONAL

cations: er Dynamics

er peers ackdual’s superidual establisence relative

ers accept conomy if they pltimately ens

mercial succe

coalitions annents, whilst g in best inteership.

Professional Ser

SERVICE F

s

knowledge ior abilities. shes status e to peers.

onstraints onperceive theyure

ess.

nd marginalizbeing seen arests of

rvice Firms – Wo

IRMS

ImplicaContex

IncreasSecureincome

n y

InterprepartnerDeliver

ze as

Succescontrovinitiativethis is in

orking Paper 01

ations: Orgaxt

se profits of fi employmen

e for colleagu

et and implemrs’ objectiveson election m

ssfully implemversial changes. Persuaden their best in

12 ‐ 2014

anizational

irm. t and

ues.

ment for firm. mandate.

ment ge e partners nterests.

Practice

implicit

capabil

accept

willingly

role of “

leaders

effect a

the orga

increas

busines

way thin

success

firm, it i

formally

formal a

This is

necess

the fee

Pr

as lead

peers. A

be main

over the

e 1, gaining

manifestat

ity. Market

him or her

y concede

“follower”.

ship role, it

a proxy for

anizational

ed profits f

ss operates

ngs work a

s is an imp

s particula

y elected ra

authority g

especially

itates a red

income ge

ractice 2, e

ers need to

As this stud

ntained bet

e partnersh

g and sust

tion of the

t success, o

r as worthy

their much

Whilst see

is not in its

leadership

l context as

for the part

s and the n

and therefo

portant prec

arly necess

ather than

ain the leg

true when

duction in t

enerated by

enabling au

o downplay

dy demons

tween ena

hip. Howev

Ca

taining legit

ability to le

our study s

to lead the

h-valued au

en within th

self eviden

p capability

s the indivi

tnership. A

nuances of

ore is less t

condition fo

ary for the

appointed

itimacy the

a person e

their fee ea

y their colle

utonomy w

y the exten

strates, par

bling their

ver, partne

ass Centre for P

39

timacy to le

ead rather t

shows, is a

em; a nece

utonomy to

ese firms a

ce that the

as it is und

idual role m

A person wh

f profession

threatening

or any lead

most senio

. Only in th

ey need to

enters a se

arning work

eagues.

whilst mainta

nt of contro

rtners reco

autonomy

rs will only

Professional Ser

ead throug

than direct

a requireme

essary cond

o a peer an

as a neces

e individual

derstood a

models beh

ho has und

nal work is

g to individ

dership role

or leadersh

his way can

exercise in

enior leade

k because

aining cont

ol they atte

ognize that

as a partn

co-operate

rvice Firms – Wo

gh market s

t evidence

ent if a par

dition for c

nd to cast th

ssary qualif

is qualified

as having a

haviors like

derstood th

less likely

ual autono

e in a profe

hip roles, w

n individua

nfluence ov

ership posit

they will re

trol, is ove

mpt to exe

a delicate

ner and ma

e with over

orking Paper 01

success, is

of leadersh

rtner’s peer

colleagues

hemselves

fication for

d to lead. I

a positive im

ely to lead t

he way the

y to interfer

omy. While

essional se

which are ty

ls with limit

ver their pe

tion which

eceive a sh

rt. It is also

ercise over

balance n

intaining c

rt attempts

12 ‐ 2014

s an

hip

rs are to

to

s in the

such a

t is in

mpact on

to

e in the

market

ervice

ypically

ted

eers.

hare of

o subtle,

their

eeds to

ontrol

s to

control

and are

the con

have a

the firm

they are

underst

partner

partner

enable

Pr

accepte

(accord

this stu

behavio

long as

rather t

success

organiz

manage

becaus

authorit

who do

deployi

behavior if

e not burea

ntingent nat

mandate f

m. This is w

e able to s

tood constr

s to some

autonomy

autonomy

ractice 3, in

ed by their

ding to notio

dy emphas

or. Such be

these indi

han to adv

sfully to im

zational con

erial autho

e they trus

ty over the

oes not app

ng highly s

f they perc

aucratic intr

ture of man

from their p

what enable

hape the o

raints. So t

extent but

y. Leaders

whilst mai

nteracting p

peers as le

ons of polit

sizes that t

ehavior is j

viduals are

vance their

mplement co

ntext. With

rity, peers

st certain in

mselves. Y

pear to hav

sophisticate

Ca

eive that th

rusions or

nagerial au

partners to

es them to

organization

traditional

have to be

are therefo

ntaining co

politically w

eaders, pro

tical behav

these indiv

ustified, by

e seen as a

own intere

ontroversia

in a contex

are willing

ndividuals s

Yet an indiv

ve to work p

ed political

ass Centre for P

40

hese will ul

excessive

uthority in s

interpret a

engage in

nal context

manageme

e applied s

ore require

ontrol.

whilst appe

ofessionals

vior as defi

iduals are

y the individ

acting in th

ests. In so

al change i

xt of extens

to cast the

sufficiently

vidual oper

politically to

skills, to e

Professional Ser

ltimately en

“managem

such organ

and implem

overt leade

t within cer

ent controls

electively t

d to be ext

earing apol

s must app

ned by the

in fact eng

dual leade

he best inte

doing, suc

nitiatives, a

sive individ

emselves i

to allow th

rating in a

o keep the

enable them

rvice Firms – Wo

nsure com

ment.”. This

nizations. L

ment partne

ership prac

rtain implic

s are perm

to maintain

tremely sub

litical, is co

pear to be a

e partners w

gaging in hi

rs and thei

erests of th

ch individua

and thus s

dual autono

n the role o

hem a degr

highly polit

ir position

m to interac

orking Paper 01

mercial su

s is the ess

Leaders in

ers’ objectiv

ctices. In s

citly and ex

mitted by th

n the perce

btle in how

overt. In ord

apolitical

within the f

ighly politic

ir “followers

e partners

als are able

hape the

omy and co

of followers

ree of form

ticized env

may in fac

ct politically

12 ‐ 2014

ccess

sence of

effect

ves for

o doing,

plicitly

e

eption of

w they

der to be

firm). Yet

cal

s,” as

hip

e

ontingent

s

mal

vironment

ct be

y whilst

appeari

service

Th

literatur

Svening

precario

context

interact

previou

within o

both co

Th

leader/f

interact

examin

profess

betwee

practice

demons

individu

leaders

curricul

they are

to lead

ing apolitic

firms.

he findings

re on leade

gsson, 200

ous and su

t, the focus

tion in parti

usly neglec

organizatio

ontext-crea

he growing

follower rel

tion. The cu

e in detail

sional servi

n leader an

es. Practice

strable abil

uals establi

ship) by eng

um. Practi

e seen to in

is, apparen

cal. This is

s from the c

ership prac

03; Crevan

ubject to ne

s in these s

icular situa

ted themes

ns affect le

ting and co

g literature

lationships

urrent stud

the impact

ce firm, au

nd follower

e 1 highligh

lity to enga

ish status d

gaging in p

ce 2 highlig

nterfere wi

ntly, more

Ca

the covert

current stud

ctices. As n

i et al, 200

egotiation.

studies is o

ations. Inste

s within thi

eadership p

ontext-depe

on plural m

s can be co

dy has take

t of ambigu

uthority is e

r but throug

hts how the

age effectiv

difference

practices th

ghts how e

th the indiv

important t

ass Centre for P

41

nature of l

dy are ther

noted by se

07; Ladkin,

However,

often on “m

ead the cu

s literature

practices, a

endent.

models of le

ontingent, c

en one part

uous powe

established

gh a comb

e legitimac

vely in spec

relative to

hat are not

explicit man

vidual auto

than direct

Professional Ser

eadership

refore cons

everal auth

2010), lea

while ackn

icro” aspec

rrent study

e: 1) how a

and 2) how

eadership

constructed

ticular extre

r dynamics

d not in any

ination of o

cy to lead is

cific “leade

their peers

part of a tr

nagement

onomy of pa

tly influenc

rvice Firms – Wo

practice in

sistent with

hors (e.g. A

der and fo

nowledging

cts such as

y focuses a

mbiguous

w leadershi

acknowled

d and nego

eme organ

s on leader

y formalized

overt, indire

s not gaine

er” activities

s (enabling

raditional le

activities a

artners. Re

ing one’s p

orking Paper 01

n professio

h the estab

Alvesson &

llower iden

g the import

s talk and

attention on

power dyn

p practices

dges that

otiated thro

nizational c

rship practi

d relations

ect and cov

ed through

s. On the c

them to ex

eadership

are minimiz

etaining leg

peers, and

12 ‐ 2014

nal

lished

ntities are

tance of

n two

namics

s are

ough

context to

ices. In a

hip

vert

contrary,

xercise

zed as

gitimacy

attempts

to do th

political

ultimate

denigra

within th

environ

position

continu

the bes

“happy

is desig

least th

leaders

dynami

power d

power d

Th

can be

market

this way

context

whilst m

created

kept wit

he latter ca

l. But partn

ely ensure

ated whilst

he complex

nment, indiv

n while in fa

ously build

st interests

band of br

gned to ens

at damagin

ship is prac

cs of the fi

dynamics,

dynamics w

he current

both conte

success, i

y it can be

t-changing

maintaining

d and how t

thin bound

n too easil

ners will ac

commercia

political sk

x and amb

viduals sho

act deployi

d coalitions

of the part

rothers” as

sure that h

ng splits w

cticed throu

rm. This a

as they rem

within the f

study has

ext-creating

s a means

see as bo

(enabling

g control, s

the impact

aries that a

Ca

y be seen

ccept const

al success

kill is privile

biguous pow

ould not ap

ing highly s

s and marg

tnership. T

one interv

armony is

ithin the pa

ugh knowle

lso reprodu

main cover

firm can be

also emph

g and conte

s of preserv

th context-

the firm to

hows how

of subtle l

are accept

ass Centre for P

42

as endorsi

traints on th

. Practice 3

eged within

wer dynam

ppear to ha

sophisticat

ginalize opp

hus, an im

viewee put

ultimately

artnership a

edge of and

uces and in

rt, so that t

e preserved

hasized the

ext-depend

ving the firm

-sustaining

grow). The

the impres

eadership

table to the

Professional Ser

ing “manag

heir autono

3 highlights

these firm

mics of thes

ave to work

ted politica

ponents, w

agery of a

it, is maint

preserved

are avoide

d subtle ma

ndeed reem

the belief in

d.

e extent to w

dent. Pract

m by impro

(ensuring

e second p

ssion that le

practices o

e partnersh

rvice Firms – Wo

gement” or

omy if they

s how polit

ms. In order

se highly po

k politically

l skills. The

whilst being

homogene

tained. Pol

within the

ed. At the s

aneuvering

mphasizes

n the apolit

which lead

tice 1, gain

oving financ

the longev

practice, en

eadership

on organiz

hip. Practice

orking Paper 01

r even bein

y perceive i

tical behav

r to rise to t

oliticized

to keep th

ey must

seen as a

eous partn

itical mane

partnershi

ame time,

g within the

the ambig

tical nature

dership pra

ning and su

cial perform

vity of the f

nabling aut

“sort of ha

ational con

e 2, an ove

12 ‐ 2014

ng

it will

vior is

the top

eir

acting in

ership, a

euvering

p or at

e power

guous

e of

ctices

ustaining

mance. In

firm) and

tonomy

ppens” is

ntext is

ert

practice

even th

directio

leaders

partner

fact, as

importa

In

overt le

position

lead, on

perform

be eage

being w

partner

suppos

As

leaders

address

practice

operate

and cov

resourc

within th

e, is about

hese more

on – throug

ship Practic

s to follow

illustrated

ant when di

these prof

eadership a

ns by their

ne must ap

ming well as

er for leade

willing to mo

ship. Our s

edly reluct

s Denis et

ship practic

s this issue

es. This stu

e outside d

vert leader

ces availab

heir firms.

carrying ou

overt aspe

h affecting

ce, on the o

them to pl

in this stu

isplaying re

fessional s

activities ar

peers with

ppear reluc

s a profess

ership roles

ove away f

study sugg

tant leaders

al. (2012: 2

ces, interac

e by highlig

udy raises

irect relatio

ship practi

ble for influe

This is not

Ca

ut an explic

ects of lead

the framin

other hand

aces they

dy, a degre

eluctant lea

service firm

re margina

out necess

ctant to take

sional rathe

s are susp

from full-tim

ests, there

s and popu

267) noted

ctions, and

ghting a co

important

ons betwee

ce represe

encing the

t of course

ass Centre for P

43

citly agreed

dership are

ng the orga

, enables i

had not ne

ee of subte

adership to

ms, therefor

lized, and

sary demo

e on the ro

er than as a

ect as bein

me fee ear

efore, that p

ulated by a

d: “We still

outcomes

mbination

issues abo

en leaders

ent importa

power dyn

exclusive

Professional Ser

d mandate

about nud

anizational

individual le

ecessarily p

erfuge abo

o autonomo

re, leadersh

people are

nstrating le

ole and one

an aspiring

ng self-serv

ning work,

professiona

autonomou

know little

.” The curr

of implicit,

out how lea

and follow

ant aspects

namics and

to professi

rvice Firms – Wo

e from the p

dging partn

context. T

eaders to p

previously

ut how act

ous followe

hip politics

e raised up

eadership a

e must crea

g leader. In

ving power

which is th

al service f

s followers

about how

rent study h

overt, and

adership pr

wers. As illu

s of the lead

d organizat

onal servic

orking Paper 01

partnership

ners in a pa

he covert

persuade t

agreed to

ivities are f

ers.

s are demo

to leaders

ability. In o

ate legitima

ndividuals s

r-seekers a

he lifeblood

firms are le

s.

w power aff

has sought

d covert lea

ractices ma

ustrated, im

ders’ reper

tional conte

ce firms (th

12 ‐ 2014

p but

articular

their

go. In

framed is

nized,

ship

order to

acy by

seen to

and for

d of the

ed by

fects

t to

adership

ay

mplicit

rtoire of

exts

he

practice

academ

importa

importa

becomi

benefit

practice

meanin

interpla

method

es identifie

mia, for exa

ant for lead

ant avenue

ng too myo

from a bro

es that are

ng manage

ay of explic

dological im

d in the cu

ample). Ra

ership gen

s for resea

opic in its v

oader unde

not easily

ment and m

it, implicit,

mplications

Ca

rrent study

ther, we pr

nerally. Wh

arch, it runs

view of pra

erstanding o

observable

manipulatio

and covert

for future

ass Centre for P

44

y may be fa

ropose, tha

hile leaders

s, as pointe

actices. Mic

of the impo

e since the

on by leade

t leadershi

research.

Professional Ser

amiliar to th

at indirect a

ship practic

ed out by D

cro-oriented

ortance of i

ey may invo

ers. As a r

p practices

rvice Firms – Wo

hose worki

and covert

ce theory h

Denis et al.

d studies o

implicit and

olve long-t

esult, this e

s has poten

orking Paper 01

ing within

practices a

as opened

(2012), th

of leadersh

d covert lea

erm and su

emphasis o

ntially sign

12 ‐ 2014

are

d up

he risk of

ip will

adership

ubtle

on the

ificant

REFER

Agar, M

Alvehus

Alvesso

Alvesso

Alvesso

Ammet

Avolio,

Baden-

Barker,

Bass, B

Bass, B

Bourdie Bryman

Carroll,

RENCES

M. 2010. OnOrganiz

s, J. (Forthservice f

on, M. & SvUgly AmOrganiza

on, M. & Svextraodi

on, M., & S“leaders

er, A. P., DToward 796.

B. J., Waluresearch

-Fuller, C. &professioJournal

R. A. 1997Human

B. M. 1985.The Free

B. M. 1990.the visio

eu, P. 1990

n, A. 1996. (Eds.), H

B., & LevyIs Not. O

n the Ethnozational Re

hcoming) Cfirms. Unde

veningssonmbiguity: Coation. Orga

veningssonnarization

Sveningssohip.” The L

Douglas, Ca political t

umbwa, F. h, and futur

& Bateson,onal servicl of Servic

7. How canRelations

. Leadershe Press.

. From tranon. Organiz

0. The Log

LeadershiHandbook

y, L. 2008. Organizatio

Ca

ographic Pesearch M

Clients and er review fo

n, S. 2003aontradictionanization S

n, S. 2003bof the mun

on, S. 2003Leadership

., Gardnertheory of le

O. & Webre direction

, J. 1990. Pce firms: is e Industry

n we train ls 50: 343–3

hip and pe

nsactional tzational dy

gic of Prac

ip in organk of organiz

Defaultingon 15(1): 7

ass Centre for P

45

Part of the MMethods 13

cases: Onor Scandin

a. Good Vins of (Non-Studies 2

b. Managendane. Hum

3c. The grep Quarterl

, W. L., Hoeadership.

er, T. J. 20ns. Annual

Promotion “up or out”

y Managem

leaders if w362.

erformance

to transformynamics 1

ctice. Cam

izations. Inization stu

g to Manag75–96.

Professional Ser

Mix: A Mult3(2): 286–3

the divisionavian Jou

sions, Bad-)Leadersh24: 961–98

rs doing leman Relat

eat disappely 14: 359–

ochwarter, WThe Lead

009. Leadel Review o

strategies ” always thment 1: 62–

we do not k

e beyond

mational le18(3), 19–3

bridge: Po

n S. R. Clegudies: 276-

ement: Lea

rvice Firms – Wo

ti-Genre Ta303.

on of labor urnal of M

d Micro-mahip in a Kno88.

eadership: Ttions 56: 1

earing act: –381.

W. A., & Federship Qu

ership: Currof Psychol

for hierarche best? In–78.

know what

expectatio

eadership: 31.

lity Press.

gg, C. Hard-292. Lond

adership D

orking Paper 01

ale of the F

in professiManagemen

nagementowledge-In

The 435–59.

difficulties

erris, G. Ruarterly 13

rent theorielogy 60: 42

chically orgternationa

leadership

ons. New Y

Learning to

dy, & W. Ron: Sage.

Defined By

12 ‐ 2014

Field.

ional nt.

and ntensive

in doing

. 2002. : 751–

es, 21–449.

anised al

p is?

York:

o share

R. Nord

What It

Carroll,

de Cert

Chia, R

Chia, R

Cunliffe

Czarnia

Denis, J

Denis, J

Denis, J

Empson

Emspso

Empson

Graen,

Gronn,

Hosking

B., Levy, Compete

teau, M. 19Californi

R. 2004. StrManage

R. & Holt, ROrganiz

e, A. L., & E1449.

awska, B. 1Chicago

J.-L., Langambiguit

J.-L., LangWorld of

J.-L., LangManage

n, L. 2001.knowledrelation

on, L. & Chalternativthe Soc

n, L. 2007.perspec

G. B. & UhDevelopmulti-do

P. 2002. D423-52.

g, D. M. 19Manage

L., & Richmency Parad

984. The Pa Press.

rategy-as-pement Rev

R. 2006. Strzation Stud

Eriksen, M

1997. Narro: The Univ

gley, A., & Cty. Organiz

gley, A., & Rf Organizat

gley, A. & Sement Ann

. Fear of exdge transfes 54: 839-6

hapman, Cve forms o

ciology of O

. Managingctives. Oxf

hl-Bien, M.pment of LMmain persp

Distributed

988. Organement Stud

Ca

mond, D. 2digm. Lead

Practices o

practice: Rview 1: 29–

rategy as pdies 27: 63

. 2011. Re

rating the versity of C

Cazale, L. zation Stu

Rouleau, Ltions. Lead

Sergi, V. 20nals 6:1: 21

xploitation r in merger62.

C. 2006. Paof governanOrganizat

g the modford: Oxford

1995. TheMX theory opective. Le

leadership

nizing, leaddies 25(2)

ass Centre for P

46

2008. Leadedership 4:

of Everyda

Reflections –34.

practical co35–55.

lational lea

Organizathicago Pre

1996. Leadudies 17: 6

L. 2010. Thdership 6:

012. Leade11–283.

and fear ors between

artnership vnce in profetions 24: 1

dern law fird Universit

e Relationsof leadersh

eadership

p as a unit o

ership, and: 147–166.

Professional Ser

ership as P363–379.

ay Life. Be

on the rese

oping: A He

adership. H

tion. Dramess.

dership an673–699.

he Practice 67–88.

ership in the

f contaminn professio

versus corpessional se39-170

rm: New cty Press.

ship-basedhip over 25Quarterly

of analysis

d skilful pro

rvice Firms – Wo

Practice: C

rkeley: The

earch agen

eideggerian

Human Rel

mas of Insti

nd strategic

of Leaders

e plural. Th

nation: impeonal service

poration; Imervices firm

challenges

approach 5 years: Ap6: 219–24

s. Leaders

ocess. Jou

orking Paper 01

Challenging

e Universit

nda. Europ

n perspect

lations 64

itutional Id

c change u

ship in the

he Academ

ediments toe firms. Hu

mplicationsms. Resear

s, new

to leaderspplying a m47.

hip Quarte

urnal of

12 ‐ 2014

g the

ty of

pean

tive.

: 1425–

dentity.

nder

Messy

my of

o uman

s of rch in

hip: multi-level,

erly 13:

Kipnis,

Kvale, S

Ladkin,

Larsson

Løwend

Maister

Marion,

Marion,

Mills, C

Mintzbe

Norden

Pearce

Pfeffer,

Pierce,

D., SchmidExplorat452.

S. & BrinkmResearc

D. 2010. RCheltenh

n, M., & LuMicro-dis159–184

dahl, B. 20Copenha

r, D. H. 199Press.

, R., & Uhl-Quarter

, R. & Uhl-leadersh

C. W. 1940.Review

erg, H. 199Busines

nflycht, Vontaxonom35: 155–

, C. & Conleadersh

J. 2013. YAcross C

C. S. 1906Harvard

dt, S. M. & tions in get

mann, S. 2ch Intervie

Rethinkingham: Edwa

undholm, Sscursive A4.

005. Strateagen: Cop

93. Manag

-Bien, M. 2rly 12: 389–

Bien, M. 20hip. Emerg

. Situated a5: 904-913

98. Covert ss Review

n, A. 2010. my of knowl–174.

ger, J. 200hip. Thous

You’re Still Contexts. T

6. CollecteUniversity

Ca

Wilkingsotting one’s

2009. Interewing. Tho

g leadershard Elgar.

S. E. 2010. Analysis of a

egic Managenhagen B

ging the Pr

2002. Lead–418.

003. Compgence 5(1)

actions and3.

leadershipw Novembe

What is a ledge-inten

03. Sharedsand Oaks

the Same:The Acade

ed Papers y Press.

ass Centre for P

47

n, I. 1980.way. Jour

Views. Leaousand Oa

hip. A new

Leadershipan Everyda

gement of Business S

rofessiona

ership in c

plexity theo: 54–76.

d vocabula

: Notes onr–Decemb

professionnsive firms

d leadersh, CA: Sage

: Why Theoemy of Ma

of Charle

Professional Ser

Intraorganrnal of App

arning theks: Sage.

w look at ol

p as Work-ay Interact

f Professiochool Pres

al Service

complex org

ory and Al-Q

aries of mot

managingber: 140–14

nal service . Academy

ip: reframe.

ories of Ponagement

es Sanders

rvice Firms – Wo

nizational inplied Psyc

e Craft of Q

ld leaders

-embeddedion in a Ba

onal Servicss.

Firm. New

ganizations

Qaeda: Ex

tive. Amer

g profession47.

firm? Toway of Manag

ming the ho

ower Hold Ot Perspect

s Peirce. C

orking Paper 01

nfluence tachology 65

Qualitative

ship questi

d Influenceank. Leade

ce Firms (

w York: The

s. The Lea

xamining co

rican Socio

nals. Harv

ard a theorgement Re

ows and w

Over Time tives 27: 2

Cambridge,

12 ‐ 2014

actics: 5: 440–

e

tions.

e: A ership 6:

3rd ed.)

e Free

adership

omplex

ological

vard

ry and eview

whys of

and 69–280.

, MA:

Plowma

Raelin,

Schatzk

Spillane Svening

Svening

Tengbla Wallace

Weick,

Yukl, G

an, D. A., SThe roleQuarter

J. 2011. F211.

ki, T., KnorContem

e, J. P. 200

gsson, S., processeOxford:

gsson, S. &2: 203–2

ad, S. (Ed.

e, M., & ToService

K. E. 1989Manage

G. 1989. MaManage

Solansky, Se of leadersrly 18: 341–

From leade

rr-Cetina, Kmporary Th

05. Distribu

Alvehus, Jes and inteOxford Un

& Larsson,224.

). 2012. Th

omlinson, MLeaders E

9. Theory Cement Rev

anagerial Lement 15: 2

Ca

S., Beck, Tship in eme–356.

rship-as-pr

K. & von Saheory. Lond

uted leader

J. & Alvesseractions. Iiversity Pre

M. 2006. F

he work of

M. 2010. Condeavour t

Constructioview 14: 51

Leadership251–289.

ass Centre for P

48

T. E., Bakerergent, self

ractice to le

avigny, E. don: Routl

rship. The

on, M. 201n S. Tengbess.

Fantasies o

f manager

ontextualizto Build Inf

on as Discip16–531.

: A Review

Professional Ser

r, L., Kulkaf-organizat

eaderful pr

2001. Theedge.

Education

2. Manageblad (ed.) T

of leadersh

rs. Oxford:

zing Leadefluence. Le

plined Imag

w of Theory

rvice Firms – Wo

arni, M., & Tion. The L

ractice. Lea

e Practice

nal Forum

erial leaderThe work o

hip: Identity

Oxford Un

r Dynamicseadership

gination. A

y and Rese

orking Paper 01

Travis, D. Veadership

adership 7

Turn in

69: 143-1

rship: Identof manage

y work. Lea

niversity Pr

s: How Pu6: 21–45.

Academy o

earch. Jour

12 ‐ 2014

V. 2007. p

7: 195–

50.

tities, ers.

adership

ress.

blic

of

rnal of

Firm

Firm A

Firm B

Firm C

Firm D

TOTAL

Practice

Gaining aretaininglegitimacthrough msuccess Enablingautonomretaining

Interactinpoliticallyappearinapolitical

Descr

Law fir

Consugloball Accouemploy Auditinemploy

THREE

e M

and

cy to lead market

I

g my whilst

control

O

ng y whilst ng l

C

ription

rm, 5,000 em

ultancy firm, 1ly

nting firm, glyees in the U

ng firm, globayees in Swed

E LEADERS

Manifestatio

mplicit

Overt

Covert

Ca

TASTUD

mployees glob

1,500 employ

obal firm withUK

al firm with 2den

SHIP PRACT

on ImplicPowe PartneindividIndividdiffere

Partneautonowill ultcomm Build copponactingpartne

ass Centre for P

49

ABLE 1 DY DATA

bally

yees

h 11,000

,000

TABLE 6

TICES IN PRO

cations: r Dynamics

er peers ackndual’s superiodual establishence relative

ers accept coomy if they ptimately ensu

mercial succes

coalitions andnents, whilst b in best inter

ership.

Professional Ser

Number ofInterviews

34

31

37

42

144

OFESSIONA

nowledge or abilities. hes status to peers.

onstraints on perceive theyure ss.

d marginalizebeing seen arests of

rvice Firms – Wo

f SupData

Obsedocu Docu

Obsedocu Obsedocu

AL SERVICE

ImplicaContext

IncreaseSecure income

InterprepartnersDeliver o

e as

Successcontroveinitiativethis is in

orking Paper 01

porting a

ervations, uments

uments

ervations, uments

ervations, uments

E FIRMS

tions: Organt

e profits of firemployment for colleague

t and implems’ objectives fon election m

sfully implemersial changees. Persuaden their best in

12 ‐ 2014

nizational

rm. and

es.

ment for firm.

mandate.

ment e e partners nterests.

Fir

m A

InteyouPaIntepowPa

Fir

m B

ThExposcomsupaboinscontha

Fir

m C

Soabopeoto f

Fir

m D

Thanyengdesstaproconbecis nthissol

ORGA

Extensiv

erviewer: Dou?

artner: Not aserviewer: Dower over you

artner: I don’t

e CEO and Cxecutive Comsitions are remmunicatingpervising. It’sout guiding o

side the organtrolling, not at kind of thin

o it’s not abouout (leaders)ople outlets…follow anyon

is company iyone else whgineers or ansigning the jo

arts at the othoblem that nensultant findicomes the mnot mine or as person whalving the prob

ANIZATIONA

ve Individua

oes anyone h

s far as I’m cooes anyone thu? think so. (A8

Chairman, Bommittee etc. …eally coordinag - I don’t thins more aboutor making surnization, but managing, n

ng. (B29)

ut following in) enabling an…. Because fe. (C9)

is not based hat to, as if thny other limitobs. … The cher end, with eeds to be song out about

manager for thanyone else’sat to do, or hblem. (D25)

Ca

TAL CONTEX

al Autonomy

have power o

oncerned nohink they hav

8)

oard of Direc… a lot of thoating or nk we need t coordinationre that cohesdefinitely no

not policing -

n that sense,nd directing, gfrankly nobod

on anyone tehere were soed set of peoconsulting bua client who

olved. And tht this problemhat job. And s business toow to go abo

ass Centre for P

50

TABLE 2

XT: PROFESS

y

over

. ve

ThPaacpebykewidme

ctors, se

n and sion is t no not

I thlealeaasof I syohacliebe

it’s giving dy has

Myabthiextimprocopesto

elling ome ople usiness o has a he m then it

o tell out

It’sThanoth

Professional Ser

SIONAL SER

Contingen

he interestingartner) is thatchieve anythineople… You cy essentially wy influencersder group, soeaning I think

hink we recogadership posadership rolek you to do …where we neay – I’m youu don’t want

appy just to bents because

est. (B8)

y experiencebout an hour nk of it as a

xperience is tme, get a liceofessional seme from you

eople get killeop following t

s not clear whhere is this amnd some partnhers, but this

rvice Firms – Wo

RVICE FIRM

nt Manageri

g thing in this t you find thang except thrcan only makworking with s) who in turno power has k to other org

gnize that anition in the fir

e. It’s someth… So I’m hapeed to go fromr servant leame in this roe a partner ae that’s what

of authority if you stop relicense to leahat you can, nse to lead f

ervices but it ur peer grouped very quickthem. (C1)

hat it looks likmbiguous cirners are mor

s is anything

orking Paper 01

MS

al Authority

role (of Senat you can’t rough other ke things hapthis group (o

n influence tha different

ganizations. (

nyone in a rm is in a sering the partnppy to get a vm (the partneder and frank

ole I’m more tand focus on we all love t

is that it lastsefreshing it. I ad. My for a very limrom above inactually has

p. We’ve seenkly if their tea

ke at the toprcle of partnere important tbut clear. (D2

12 ‐ 2014

y

ior

ppen of he

(A7)

rvant ners view ers). kly if than

to do

s

mited n to

n ms

. ers, than 28)

Fir

m A

Pathe Onpe I thbecclie

Fir

m B

LeaI nepa YoyouYoon Evaropeopra

Fir

m C

Toas or adv ThthrrelaTh I'vehaveasof goowo

Fir

m D

Thcommato … Ththe Whcon(D

GAINING

artners tend toey respect as

ne of the reasrceived to be

hink a lot of thcause those ent and so onadership in tecessarily harticularly resp

ou can't be a ur colleagues

ou have to haly propose b

veryone on thound the partople who areactice. (B2) be the persoChairman, ywhatever it isvancement. (

ey earn the rrough enhancationship thaey have the

e dealt with sving won thasiest one eithmajor client)od partner. Y

ork. (C18) e role of the mpany. Hereanagers in anbecome a suget you to do

ose who are ey are good t

hat is particunsultants. An12)

& RETAININ

o want to be s business ge

sons I think we a successfu

he leadershippeople have

n and in the ehis firm is a fave been thepected as a c

leader withos as a succe

ave a demonsut also dispo

he global ExCtnership, youe perceived w

on who actuayou've got thes, that's what(C7)

right to get incing the valuat we didn’t hrespect of th

some of our mat. I'm also sther. And, eve. ...So if I put

You know, on

manager is, e, I’d say, theny sense. Rauccessful cono fun things.

leaders in thtax lawyers. (

lar of the orgnd they contin

Ca

NG LEGITIM

led by partnenerators. (A

why people wul Banking pa

p in a firm is e the credibiliend all that wfunction of one best consultclient relation

ut having cressful client estrated track

ose. (B27)

Com has alreu would not ewithin the firm

ally runs somere because t people resp

nto one of thoe of the partnave before, oe partners be

most difficult ill currently then now I’ve bt my little egone of the top

in this busine leader playsather it is the nsultant. GooAnd earn a l

his organizati(D5)

ganization is tnue consultin

ass Centre for P

51

TABLE 3

MACY TO LEA

ers and in faA14)

were happy toartner… I ran

linked to youty, those peo

we do is ultimnes credibilitytant in our firnship person

edibility as a xecutor, I dorecord of ha

eady been anexpect an eyem as being ve

mething: eitheyou've been

pect first and

ose positionsnership becaor won a majecause they’

audits. So I'vhe partner onbecome heado hat on for apartners, I su

ess, less imps a bigger rolclearly shinin

od, successfulot of money.

ion are not th

that those whng on a full ti

Professional Ser

AD THROUG

ct they tend

o have me asn a lot of our

ur practice anople are in th

mately directey as a profesrm but I’m res – without tha

practitioner ion't think youraving delivere

n office leadeebrow to be rery strong pe

er runs a func outstandingforemost in

s through ... dause they’ve jor piece of w’re recognize

ve been the n (name of md of the audita moment I wuppose, and

portant than ile … That is,ng people whul tax consult. That’s what

hat because

ho become leme basis eve

rvice Firms – Wo

GH MARKET

to want to be

s Senior Partkey relations

nd the positioe market, the

ed towards clssional, in whspected as aat I cannot le

n this firm. Sr proposals ced, of being s

er. And they'reraised at theierformers in t

ction, runs a with clients. our firm. So

doing fantastieither develo

work and doned for doing th

partner on (nmajor client) a

practice; I'mwas sort of, yo

one that can

in for exampl people who

ho, in their watants who sht we ultimatel

they are goo

eaders are then though the

orking Paper 01

T SUCCESS

e led by partn

tner, becauseships and so

on in the marey actually knients. (A1)

hat we do – I a professionaead. (B11)

So if you're nocarry as muchsomebody wh

e people whor appointmenheir market o

service line, Whether it'sthat's the key

ic stuff with coped a client ne that consishat. (C14)

name of majoand that's not

m just going oou know, seen get out ther

le a manufacdon’t have to

ay of being, sow a way of ly want to do

od leaders bu

hose who areey are mana

12 ‐ 2014

ners who

e I was on. (A7)

rket now the

don’t think al and

ot seen by h weight. ho cannot

o generally nt - the or in their

or ends up s leadership y to

clients,

stently...

or client) t the

onto (name en to be a re and win

cturing o be show how being that

o.(D25)

ut because

e good gers.

Fir

m A

F

irm

B

Fir

m C

F

irm

D

You can’t recan say whahope peoplepeople you who are mothe businesscontrol the c [The Chairmmanagemenright. If I looto do some and it’s not w

One of the tabout the ormuch respowill allow it. have to go aimportant assure that weextent the caorganizationgot? (C6) Most of us kmove towardbusiness anevery partneothers care going to do may interferand so on, tbusiness. (D

ENABLING

Enabling Au

eally tell peopat you’re goine will agree wcan least tellst important s. Because tclient relation

man’s] classicnt in this firmk at my last tmanagemenworked. (B17

things that I hrganization isnsibility as yoBut they don

and take it. Aspect of leade mine to theapabilities ofn because wh

know what tods common g

nd agreeing oer works, thavery little abosomething s

re, but how ythat’s each aD6)

Ca

AUTONOMY

utonomy

ple what to dong to do and with it ... and what to do afor the succehey are the o

nships. (A17)

c line is ‘I don’… And I thinthree years,

nt stuff in [cou7)

have always s that you takou want. Andn’t offer it to yAnd I think an

ership is to m fullest possif the people ihat else have

o do anyway. goals for the on those. Butat’s somethingout. Sure, if ypecial, then oou work withnd everyone

ass Centre for P

52

TABLE 4

Y WHILST M

o. You then the are those ess of ones who )

Btocbhae

n’t want nk he’s I’ve tried untry]

Wpawgp

liked ke as d people you, you n make ble n the

e we

AaTdts

Things

t how g that you’re others

h clients ’s

Isintaincsninht

Professional Ser

MAINTAININ

Because we ao have a mocan’t just simbecause you hard earned cand balancesentrepreneur

We’re all leadpart of the stoand that’s whwe went througuess what, tpressure’s on

At the same tare peers, theThere do needecisions mahat sort of thstep in and sa

’d say part ofsome things bndividual shoasks. If they nstead of on charge for thasomething weno) administrn the sense thierarchies ohings. We do

rvice Firms – Wo

G CONTROL

Maintaining

are the size wre regulated ply go off anare deprivingcash. So thes and I think tialism. (A9)

ders…that’s tory and that’shat I expect thugh the globathere was non, they expec

time even thoere do need ed to be tougade on whereing. … knoway no, yes. (C

f the leadersbecome morouldn’t have tdid, they’d sclient work,

at time. It is be can chargerative or orgathat we put ar reporting ston't have tha

orking Paper 01

L

g Control

we are now, set of rules. d do what yog other peopre has to be that stops a b

the narratives exactly whahem to say. Bal financial c

o argument. Wct me to lead

ough all the pto be decisioh things don

e we’re goingwing when yoC14)

hip is to ensure efficient. Eto handle all pend their timand then we

better that thee for. … (But anizational leaa strong emptructures andt. (D35)

12 ‐ 2014

we have … You

ou want ple of their checks bit of

, that’s at I say But when risis, When the . (B33)

partners ons made. e or to invest, u have to

ure that ach routine

me on that cannot ey do we have adership hasis on

d such

If somebdiminishe This firm One of thyou becacorporate I mean ththe firm w[slams haneed to dterms of

The role they ema The prevwere domnumber oinfluencepromises You goveconstituti (One of tedgy andHe had wyou are gsaying) ‘wpulling th

You needmy view,political, Sometimis. He’s vsome of player in genuine It’s typicaright thin I think it’spersonalvery brigan analyt

IN

ody has a poed within the

is a structur

he things thaause they doe, because I'

his organizatwho will say fand on table]do along the what they th

involves us bail us or call u

vious electionminant charaof the more se…. It was alls being made

ern by your mional power t

the candidated challengingworked out thgoing to attrawe’ll knock dheir weight.’(C

d to be straig the best wayou lose a lo

mes my sensevery modest those things that way at aand clean. (A

al of the partng. And so the

s all about tru, this is the vht, very inteltical way, it’s

NTERACTINGPart 1:

olitical score firm. (B1)

re where crea

t is great abon't want to dom almost co

ion is no diffefrom quite an], ‘do you thinway?’… Andink people w

Part 2: Abeing seen aus we have t

n for Senior Pacters within tsenior partnel closed doore to various s

mandate andthat’s given t

es in the elecg of all the cahat in order toact the more jdown some oC3)

Part 3: Beght with peopy of playing i

ot of the trust

e would be (Sabout it, quitthat might b

all. … it’s simA19)

ners who've ey don't get i

ust… Peopleview, and tholectual, quiet

s quite a cold

Ca

G POLITICAProfessed ato settle and

ating enemie

out the firm iso something.mpletely apo

erent to mann early age tonk I’m in the d they’re rega

will want to heAdoption of

as acting as to call back a

Partner therethe organizat

ers including trs – smoke fisenior people

your persono you. (A7)

ction campaigandidates ando win enoughjunior partne

of the more se

lieving effecple even if yoit… If you’re t (A34).

Senior Partnee self-effacine under the h

mply because

been in the finvolved in po

e who just tellose people hatly spoken bu way but it’s

ass Centre for P

53

TABLE 5

LLY WHILSTabhorrence o that agenda

s or politickin

s that there's.... It's one ofolitical. (B23)

y others. Theo you, particuframe to be arded as quitear and what f political lanthe servants and we have

was a bit of tion and (perthe outgoinglled rooms –

e to get them

nal credibility

gn for Chairmd at times agh votes his beers you appeaenior partner

ctive leadersu tell them bseen as bein

er) doesn’t neng, and he hiheading of cre his own mo

firm for quite olitics. But th

l it straight, inave the higheut articulate, wnot personal

Professional Ser

T APPEARINof political b

a becomes tra

ng is wholly u

s no vindictivef the reasons

ere are peopularly over a Managing Pate pushy, willthey think pe

nguage and of the partneto help them

a power strurson) held sw Senior Partn lots of politic

m to support (

and authorit

man), his videggressive towest opportunal to their desrs who are ea

s to be “aboad things, if y

ng slippery, ju

ecessarily alwmself doesn’reeping as in

otivations in th

a long time, hey are aware

n a non-persoest respect, liwill just tell yl, he’s trusted

rvice Firms – Wo

NG APOLITIbehaviour ansparent, th

unproductive

e politics abos I could neve

ple who are cbeer or over artner or Senl be more poeople will wapractices

ers. We have, be seen to

uggle betweeway on the baner who had cking etc. etcperson). (C6

y not by virtu

eo and manifwards the incuity was the msire for improarning a load

ove politics”you’re straighust saying th

ways unders’t attach such

n slightly sinishis world are

that they're ae of stuff goin

onal way, it’sike (person),

you it straightd. (A12)

orking Paper 01

CAL

hat person is

. (B21)

out people wher survive in a

learly very amr a meal or ovnior Partner, wlitical in their

ant to vote for

our constitube helpful. (A

en two individasis of suppoquite a lot of

c. etc. – a var)

ue of some ki

festo were thumbent leade

more junior paoved profitabd of money bu

. ht with peoplings to be hig

stand how infh great imporster. He is noe so, I think, v

actually tryingng on. (C12)

s not vindictiv is a straight t, it’s not pers

12 ‐ 2014

ho upset a

mbitious in ver a chat what is it I

r views in r. (A2)

ents, when A34)

duals who ort from a f riety of

ind of

he most ership … artners. If ility (by ut not

le that’s, in ghly

fluential he rtance to ot himself a very

g to do the

ve, it’s not forward,

sonal, it’s

Caass Centre for P

54

Professional Serrvice Firms – Woorking Paper 0112 ‐ 2014