Innovative Practice Management

In a post by Rita Keller on CPA Management she advocates the practice of publishing rankings of the firms associates. It would seem this is a practice of Moss Adams, a large national firm. The post titled Ranking Your Individual Team Members doesn’t provide specifics as to what the criteria that were used in the ranking scheme by Moss Adams. They state that you should rank people by the criteria that are important to your firm. The article goes on to state that the staff felt it was a positive motivator and “no one quit”. (Yet!) » » » more

The keystone of practice management for the accounting profession and most law firms has long been the billable hour. We rely on hours accumulated on time sheets in six minute increments to drive most every aspect of our practices » » » more

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.

In an article published December 5, by smartpros.com, PricewaterhouseCoopers characterized the results of a recent survey as validating the work schedule requirements of the firm. Seventy-five percent of the respondents to the survey, (some 2793 entry level professionals offered positions by PwC), indicated they expected to work a ‘normal work week’. The survey further indicated that on average each graduate expected to have between 2 and 5 employers in their lifetime. The article and related link to the PwC survey are at http://accounting.smartpros.com/x60006.xml.

Interestingly, neither the article or the survey defined ‘normal work week’. Typically, the normal work week in the United States is considered to be 40 to 45 hours (move to France if you think 30 to 35 is more reasonable and want the government to pay for it). What PwC failed to advise their survey respondents of was that the company typically considers 50 to 60 hours as being ‘normal’, and of course there is no additional compensation over and above the base salary for hours in excess of 40. Once they realized they have been at worst ‘lied to’, or at best ‘intentionally mislead’ by their new employer, is it any surprise that they’ll move on to employer number 2 of 5?

While it is commendable and encouraging that this global professional accounting titan recognizes that “future business models will need to anticipate change and address how they will attract, retain and motivate the people they will need in the future” it is unconscionable that they continue, as does our entire profession, to employ management tenets that were fomented in a different age and are completely and totally unresponsive to the business and social environment of today, simultaneously ignoring the needs of those very same people they will need in the future.

It’s not just PwC. Until we as a profession, make professional accounting attractive as a career opportunity rather than the job that it currently is for most entering it, the exodus of young professionals to industry will continue. What is it going to take? Let us know your thoughts.