The changing professional organization: A review of competing archetypes

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to summarize literature relevant to the professional organization and to present a contemporary analysis of the archetype concept in this field. In order to understand recent and ongoing changes in professional organizations, the paper begins with a review of how the professional archetype evolved from the 1960s to 1990. Then, with examples from contemporary accounting, health care and law organizations, it considers the processes by which an institutionalized archetype can change. Forces for change -such as deregulation, competition, technology and globalization -can challenge the interpretive scheme and eventually delegitimize the existing archetype. At the same time, significant environmental changes can override isomorphic pressures and de-institutionalize the longaccepted structures. Thus we herald the emergence a new professional archetype -or perhaps several competing archetypes. Finally, the paper reviews the evolving field of professional organization as a whole, and understands the extant archetypes. A typology of professional organizations is proposed that currently seems to have three clusters of organizations -possibly three competing archetypes -namely, the traditional professional partnership, the specialized 'Star' form and the corporate global professional network, or GPN.

Delivering ‘effortless experience’ across borders: Managing internal consistency in professional service firms

“…multinational clients, cross-border projects and the internationalization of legal business), a further strand of significance to this research addresses 'archetype shift' in PSFs (Greenwood & Hinings, 1993Morris & Pinnington, 1998Pinnington & Morris, 2002) and in law firms (Cooper et al, 1996;Pinnington & Morris, 2003;Brock, 2006). 'Archetype shift' means that the traditional hierarchical professional partnership (usually called the 'P 2 ' structure (Greenwood et al, 1990)) has changed into a more 'business-like' entity (Pinnington & Morris, 2003: 85) known as the 'managed professional business' (MPB).…”

“…The MPB organization is likely to include 'more formalized management practices and defined management roles' (Pinnington & Morris, 2003:86). Brock (2006) has reviewed this entire archetype change literature and developed a third type of PSF organization which he calls the Global Professional Network (GPN) which, as the name implies, is a new organization type to reflect the incidence of large global PSFs.…”

Knowing your boundaries: Integration opportunities in international professional service firms

“…Many IPSFs follow a transnational strategy (Brock, 2006;Faulconbridge, 2008;Miozzo, et al, 2012;Segal-Horn & Dean, 2009, 2007. However, we have scant knowledge on how these firms can balance the quest for global integration and local responsiveness.…”

“…Professional services are generally considered to be difficult to standardize (Løwendahl, 1997;Maister, 1993) since knowledgeable individual local experts are central to what these firms offer. Nevertheless, an increasing number of professional service firms (PSFs) are internationalizing and, thereby, gaining scale advantages (Boussebaa, 2009;Brock, 2006;Brock & Powell, 2005;Faulconbridge, Beaverstock, Muzio, & Taylor, 2008;Greenwood & Empson, 2003;Hitt, Bierman, Uhlenbruck, & Shimizu, 2006;Segal-Horn & Dean, 2009, 2007. Our empirical investigations involve different business models in two mature IPSFs that serve both local and global markets.…”

Innovative capabilities in international professional service firms: enabling trade-offs between past, present, and future service provision

“…The changing nature of PSFs is driven by institutional forces such as industry regulations, technological developments, and increased globalization (Brock and Powell 2005;Brock 2006;Brock 2012;Greenwood and Empson 2003;Kipping and Kirkpatrick 2013) which offer new opportunities for search and learning processes in IPSFs. For instance, by pursuing a transnational strategy, IPSFs get opportunities for global knowledge sourcing, and technological innovations through providing globally integrated services (Breunig et al 2014;Muzio and Faulconbridge 2013;Segal-Horn and Dean 2011).…”