This week I had the opportunity to interview a five year senior from a national firm, who is interested in altering her career path and coming to work for us. During the course of the interviews (we always do at least three) the normal questions arose regarding compensation, benefits, and continuing education, and what types of clients she would be assigned.
We typically have moved away from ‘assigning’ staff to client projects. Alternatively, once our pricing committee accepts a client, the engagement partner will select the manager or supervisor he would like – manager / supervisory senior / senior. After defining the engagement to them, he will then invite them to be a part of the engagement team. They can decline without prejudice. They in turn will invite other associates to be a member of the engagement team. Why would we do this?
Typically, we all are much more likely to take ownership of projects we have personally committed to, which equates to better client service. We are more stimulated by projects that interest us, and hopefully, therefore, more satisfied professionally. Ultimately, we have a more effective engagement team and a happier client. Equally as significant, we have more highly satisfied and motivated associates, who have been given the responsibility of maintaining their own work / life balance, and not micromanaged by a ‘scheduling coordinator’ who can’t possibly know what everyone’s needs, prejudices and demands are, at any given time.
Our belief is that professional knowledge workers are conscientious, committed and motivated, just as we were when we were ‘baby accountants’. We wouldn’t have abused our freedom of choice, and neither will the young professionals of today.
I’m going to ask the obvious question: What do you do with clients no one wants to work on?
Comment by Neil — February 1, 2008 @ 6:36 am
This has happened to us occassionally. It’s critical to first find out “why” no one wants to work on this engagement. You might possibly be able to mitigate the objections. Our experience has been that either the ‘work’ itself was the problem, but more frequently it was that the client was a jerk.
On our web page in the Firm Values box on the home page we clearly state that our associates and their families come first. We live by that. Forcing associates to work on these type of engagements will result in unhappy associates and an unhealthy office environment, both of which are guaranteed to increase your staff turnover. We believe it is easier to replace a client.
Before you ask, “Yes, even if it’s a large client”. Last year we withdrew from our second larges public company audit for precisely these reasons. We didn’t just walk away though. We discussed our withdrawal with the client over 3 months and phased out with some class and consideration for the client.
I believe this will happen very infrequently, and the benefits (which are difficult to measure) I’ve discussed in the post will significantly outweigh the costs (which are easier to measure). And you know how accountants like to “manage by measurement”. Don’t fall into that trap.
Comment by Mark Bailey — February 1, 2008 @ 11:15 am
That’s awesome, Mark. I’m sure your associates appreciate being treated so well. Dumping trouble clients is the best ‘benefit’ an accounting firm can give their employees, but it takes guts.
Comment by Neil — February 4, 2008 @ 5:02 pm