Alternative Careers and Internal Closure Mechanisms in Professional Services Firms:
How gender inequality persists
Abstract
Despite increasing numbers of female entrants to professional services firms, their route to
partnership within existing ‘tournament’ based career processes remains problematic. In this
article we assess the impact of the introduction of alternative career paths on female career
advancement. We go beyond existing studies which illustrate the existence and feminisation of
alternative career paths by illustrating the processes by which these paths actually perpetuate a
gendered construction of career and fail to provide a gender neutral career option. Drawing on
interview data with female lawyers and accountants, we identify how internal closure
mechanisms are mobilised by firms through processes of ‘moralising’, ‘minimizing’ and
ultimately ‘marginalising’ - positioning those unable to meet the rigours of the tournament as
‘other’. We thus show these are not alternative career paths, as this would imply they are
different, but equal; instead we evidence the clear superiority of the tournament model over
alternatives.
Keywords
Accounting, Career Success, Closure, Gender, Law, Partnership, Professional Service Firms.
Alternative Careers and Internal Closure Mechanisms in Professional Services Firms:
How gender inequality persists
Introduction
Increasing numbers of women are attracted to careers in the professional services including
law, accountancy and management consultancy. As Bolton and Muzio (2008: 282) note: ‘There
seems little doubt that women have made huge progress; numerically dominating areas of the
labour market and entering and succeeding in previously male dominated occupations and
professional groups’. However, optimistic forecasts that the rise in women’s participation in
the professional services would translate into gender equality at senior levels are somewhat
challenged by figures which show that alongside increased entry by women into these areas of
the labour market has come vertical stratification and horizontal segmentation (Hagan & Kay,
1995; Sommerlad, 2002; Stake, Dau-Schmidt, & Mukhopadhaya, 2007). We thus see at the
partner level, that only 14-17% of women make partner in the ‘Big 4’ accounting firms
(Spence, 2012), and in law firms in the UK, 21% of women are partners, compared with 49%
of men (Law Society, 2010).
The traditional pinnacle of career success in professional services firms (PSFs) has been the
attainment of partner status, in what is often termed the tournament or ‘up-or-out’ system of
promotion (Galanter & Palay, 1991; Malhotra, Morris, & Smets, 2010), where candidates
compete against each other for promotion to a limited number of partnership positions and
those unable to reach this level move to other forms of work outside the firm. However, over
the past few years, many firms are introducing alternative career paths involving moving into
management of the firm, in roles such as professional support, human resources,
communications, knowledge management, or permanent associate positions. Such alternative
career paths were not created solely for women but may appeal disproportionally to women
due to the possibilities for flexible working and perceived moderation of inherent masculine
cultures and long-hour modes of working (Anderson-Gough, Grey, & Robson, 2005; Haynes,
2008; Sommerlad, 2004, 2012; Wald, 2010) endemic in many firms. It has been argued,
however, that alternative career paths, while appearing to support women, actually lead to a
new form of vertical segregation that derails women’s careers (Almer, Lightbody, & Single,
2012; Lupu, 2012).
The aim of this article is to expand understanding of whether these alternative career paths
challenge the traditional hegemonic masculine model of career success evident in PSFs (i.e.
that of the career tournament) and provide alternative understandings of the nature of forging
a successful and rewarding career, or whether they continue to marginalise women. We draw
from interview data with female lawyers and accountants in the US and the UK, in which they
were asked about their careers within their law or accounting firm and their experiences of
alternative career routes. Our contribution is twofold: empirically, we expand on existing
studies of alternative career paths, by identifying the processes and effect of internal closure
mechanisms (Ackroyd & Muzio, 2007) mobilised by firms to position those unable to meet the
rigours of the tournament as ‘other’. In our study, internal closure mechanisms are identified
as processes of ‘moralising’, ‘minimizing’ and ultimately ‘marginalising’ those engaging with
alternative models of career advancement. Conceptually, we evaluate the tournament model
of career success alongside newly emerging alternative paths, demonstrating these are not
alternative in the sense of different but equal; rather, we evidence the clear perceived
superiority of the tournament model over newly introduced career paths, bolstered by internal
closure mechanisms through which prevailing masculine models of career success in
professional services remain intact and devoid of challenge.
The article is structured as follows: we first introduce the nature of the professional services
firm, with a particular focus on the key drivers for the increase in female participation. We then
discuss the ‘up-or- out’ tournament model prevalent in the promotion to partner process and
evaluate its gendered nature underpinned by masculine organisational processes, before
introducing emerging alternative career paths within professional services firms. After a
methods section outlining the interpretive approach to our interviews with women in
professional services firms, the article analyses the data. Here we find evidence of processes
of moralising, minimizing and marginalising, which we suggest represent examples of the
process by which internal closure mechanisms are mobilised by firms and alternative models
of career success are effectively subordinated, leaving the existing model of career success
intact and uncontested.
The Professional Service Firm – The Drivers for Feminisation
The professional services industry comprises organisations that provide advice to other
organisations on matters as diverse as law, accounting, management processes and practice and
strategic direction, based upon a body of complex knowledge applied to client problems
(Lowendahl, 2000; von Nordenfycht, 2010). The PSF is a growing and increasingly influential
economic sector which has been steadily growing worldwide over the past 25 years at an
average rate of 10% (Muzio & Tomlinson, 2012). To meet this growth, previously underrepresented areas of the labour market have been accessed and women and those from ethnic
minorities have gained mass entry to undertake roles in firms which until relatively recent
times, were closed to them (Brockman, 2001; Wilkins & Gulati, 1996). With women’s
increased entry as essential resources in the ambitious economic growth plans and increasingly
leveraged business models evident in PSFs (Muzio & Tomlinson, 2012), attention has shifted
from issues of exclusion to the nature of inclusion. As a recent Law Society Report indicated:
“The current profile of the senior levels of law firms across the globe does not reflect the reality
of a profession where, for many years, women have entered the legal profession in large
numbers. The industry is haemorrhaging talent to the detriment of firms and their clients” (Law
Society, 2012: 4).
The term ‘closure regimes’ refers to the way professions limit membership to those who meet
stringent entry requirements, including both explicit criteria, such as educational qualifications,
and more implicit criteria, relating to class, race and gender, or other credentials (Haynes,
2013). As external closure regimes have been eroded through equality of opportunity and antidiscrimination legislation, attention has shifted to internal closure mechanisms, such as
processes and practices which regulate advancement through the firm and control access to the
most senior and prestigious positions (Ackroyd & Muzio, 2007) Key among these are models
of career success and notions of the constitution of indicators and signals of professional
advancement.
Career Success in the PSF: All change?
With changing demographics, it becomes important to assess whether a quantitative shift in the
demography of PSFs to a more diverse workforce has been reflected in qualitative changes to
internal firm management processes and practices (Muzio & Tomlinson, 2012). In terms of
career structure the dominant model is the ‘up-or-out’ or tournament based approach to
promotion where those considered unsuitable to join the partnership leave the firm (Galanter
& Palay, 1991; Gilson & Mnookin, 1989; Morris & Pinnington, 1998). These practices ensure
juniors, attracted by the benefits of partnership, will work excessively hard to impress seniors
and ensure they move ‘up’ rather than ‘out’. Candidates compete against one another for
promotion to a limited number of positions. The tournament is time-limited (promotion has to
be achieved within a specific time period, usually around 10 years) and those failing are
prohibited from competing in the next round and expected to leave the firm. The most critical
stage of the tournament occurs at the promotion to partner stage as this has ramifications for
the firm’s reputation and future revenue streams (Malhotra et al., 2010).
However, the nature of the tournament and professional success in general has emanated from
hegemonic masculine ideology (Davies, 1996; MacDonald, 1995; Witz, 1992). Acker’s
concept of inequality regimes refers to the ‘loosely interrelated practices, processes, actions,
and meanings that result in and maintain class, gender and racial inequalities with particular
organisations’ (Acker, 2006: 443), giving the appearance of gender neutrality while privileging
the ideal of the unencumbered man (Acker, 1990). Gender acts as an abstract organising
principle of organizational life (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a). This is reflected in changes to the
tournament which in recent times has minimised the importance of traditional promotion
criteria such as technical competence and experience, and replaced them with new
competencies which include commercial acumen, managerial potential and the ability to
cultivate and win new client business (Bolton & Muzio, 2008), which is often defined as the
key component of the ‘business case’ for partnership. Such business practices expose the ‘often
subtle ways in which organizational policies, processes and interactions create gendered
distinctions’ that conflate the ideal with masculinity (Ely & Meyerson, 2000a: 599). Building
a business case involves developing and leveraging social capital and membership of key
networks. The problematic nature of these activities for women have been well discussed
(Eagly & Carli, 2007; Kumra & Vinnicombe, 2010; Ohlott, Ruderman, & McCauley, 1994;
Travers & Pemberton, 2000). It is thus evident that neutral and objective criteria such as
billable hours and client cultivation are imbued with gendered assumptions about the way in
which work is done, and serve to act as powerful exclusionary mechanisms which bolster and
support a masculine articulation of professionalism (Sommerlad, 2007 cited in Bolton & Muzio
2008). Professional identities may also be gendered due to stereotypes associated with
masculine and feminine social and cultural norms within professions and professional services
firms leading to implicit forms of social closure (Haynes, 2012). Hence, to apply Acker’s
(1990, 2006, 2012) concepts, the culture and practices that produce inequality regimes are
embedded and reproduced in organisations, suggesting that internal closure mechanisms are
gendered.
Emerging Career paths in the PSF: Alternatives to Partnership as Pinnacle of success?
In relation to how women conceptualise and manage their careers, there are a number of
disconnects with the tournament model. In their overview of the literature relating to women’s
careers, O’Neil et al.(2008), suggest women’s conceptualizations of career success are
consistent with 1 or more of 4 overarching patterns, which are unlikely to be replicated in
organisational career structures: first, women’s careers are embedded in their broader life
contexts, rather more than men’s are, but organisational realities tend not to reflect this and the
implicit assumption remains that career and life are separate. Pattern two reflects that blending
family and career is central to women’s lives, perhaps more than men due to gendered divisions
of household caring; however, families continue to represent a liability to
women’s
organisational advancement. Pattern three indicates women tend not to follow a single career
path or pattern; rather they manage their careers to reflect a variety of paths and patterns when
compared to men. Women are more likely to take career breaks, move sideways and come in
and out of the labour market, whereas organisations continue to recognise and reward only
upwardly mobile career paths. Pattern four draws attention to the issue of human and social
capital as critical success factors in women’s career development, but despite strenuous efforts
by women to enhance these, the glass ceiling1 remains stubbornly intact (O’Neil et al. 2008).
In PSFs we have seen the emergence of alternative career paths, potentially in an attempt to
meet some of the changing expectations of career success evident in an increasingly diversified
workforce. Malhotra et al. (2010) found that the majority of law firms in their study had
introduced senior roles as an alternative to partnership. These included: Of Counsel, a role for
senior associates with around 8 years post-qualification experience who ought to be ready for
partnership but who have either not made partner or have not applied to do so as they lack a
strong enough business case; Permanent associates, not identified as partnership material and
most prevalent in practice areas with a need for experienced lawyers but a weak business case
for partnership (where they lack evidence of fee and business development); and Professional
Support Lawyers who are qualified lawyers whose role is to provide support services to fee
earning lawyers.
Malhotra et al’s (2010) study found that although Human Resources
departments in the firms believed these roles were more suited to contemporary economic and
social conditions requiring flexibility, firm partners and women undertaking these roles were
not as positive, citing reputational issues with clients and perceptions of second-best positions.
In the accounting profession, similar trends are evident. Almer, Lightbody and Single (2012)
identified the emergence of alternative career structures , observing such roles are typically
undertaken by women and expressing concern they may lead to ‘pink ghettos’ and a new form
of vertical segregation. While alternative career structures are generally positioned as
developmental steps to partnership, the typical workload of those undertaking the newly
1
The glass ceiling refers to cultural and institutional barriers that prevent women from achieving leadership
positions (see, for example, Cook & Glass, 2013; Durbin, 2002).
introduced ‘post-senior management’ positions tends to be on technical outputs, firm
administration and staff development, tasks more associated with a terminal post-senior
management position, rather than new business development and strategic involvement in firm
management (Almer et al., 2012).
Similarly, Lupu (2012) suggests the construction of
alternative, feminized routes rather than ‘approved’ traditional routes, in the French ‘Big 4’
accounting firms, derails women’s careers from a very early stage. Pervasive vertical
segregation on gendered lines, concentrating women’s participation in lower level or less
prestigious positions, can support the legitimation of masculine organizational cultures that
stereotype women (Nemoto, 2013). In the remainder of this paper, we evaluate the processes
by which PSFs perpetuate the masculine tournament model.
Method
The data associated with this article forms part of a two year funded research project
involving professional services firms in the UK and the US, two geographical areas where
many large PSFs originate, though it is acknowledged that cultural contexts may differ
between these areas and other parts of the world. The wider study investigates professional
identity formation in PSFs, and the extent to which professional identities are gendered, or
embodied in specific cultural forms, which may provide opportunities for, or inhibit, the
recruitment, retention and career development of skilled professionals. This article considers
the impressions of and attitudes to existing and alternative career models experienced by
women in professional services firms. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with
fifteen female accounting and law professionals in the UK and fifteen in the USA. The
interviews were wide ranging life narratives, covering many aspects of professional
experience, identity, career aspiration and progression, and designed to take an interpretive
approach, giving insights into experiences rather than forming a representative sample of
professionals.
All the participants in the study were drawn from large professional services firms: the
lawyers from international corporate law firms; about half of the accountants from Big 4
firms and the remainder from large second tier firms, located either in west coast states of the
USA or within sizable cities in the UK. Participants ranged in their experience from secondyear associate lawyers and accountants with three year’s post-qualification experience, to
equity partners with up to 25 years’ experience. All of the participants were white, except
two in the USA who originated from Asian backgrounds. As might be expected from
professionally qualified practitioners, all participants had high educational qualifications.
INSERT TABLE 1 HERE
Interviewees were initially sourced through personal contacts in the two professions and
through contacting professional women’s networking groups, followed by snowballing
techniques whereby additional interviewees were referred through contacts. Interviews
ranged in length from one to three hours, usually taking place in the firms’ premises but
sometimes in public places or in the participant’s home. All interviews were recorded with
the permission of the participant and then transcribed.
For the purposes of this paper, we undertook an analysis of the data for issues relating to
career, using interpretive narrative analysis whereby transcripts were read while listening to
the recordings several times and annotated for any references to attitudes to and expectations
of partnership, partnership prospects, existing and alternative career paths. Cross references
could then be made between the comments and experiences of the participants in order to
find common themes.
In the analysis that follows we acknowledge that our interpretation is informed by our own
ontological positioning as feminist researchers, where we are sensitised to gendered
perspectives. As van den Brink and Benschop (2011: 512) have noted ‘elaborate training in
identifying gender inequality makes us vulnerable to reading more inequality in the data than
may actually exist’. However, in analysing the data we sought to identify examples of
ambiguity and conflict arising for the participants, as well as highlighting any other
interpretations of the career choices they made.
Partnership as the pinnacle of success?
In line with expectations of the tournament model, several interviewees suggested that their
initial aspiration when they entered their professional services career was to achieve
partnership status, with some retaining this ambition:
I thought that was the point, you graduated, you worked your butt off, you did really
good work and you made partner. (P27, non-equity partner, International law firm,
US)
However, we also see a questioning of partnership as the ‘pinnacle’ and the natural outcome
of the tournament, with many of the women indicating their aspirations towards partnership
had diminished, and the traditional motives of salary and prestige were insufficient to tempt
them to pursue this ambition. There is recognition, here expressed by a senior female partner
in a large accounting firm, that the sacrifices made to achieve partnership status are very
high:
I do think we face challenges in adapting to what the younger generation wants, you
know, the generation of partners that I work with are the ones that are prepared to put
everything on hold, to be a partner, because the payback once you reached it was
good. We are finding that our younger generation are not prepared to do that, they're
not prepared to put families on hold, they are not prepared to give up vacations,
they're not prepared to do that for long term (P17, Equity Partner – Audit, Big 4, US)
This lends doubt into the continued perception of partnership as being the desirable career
achievement, while for those mentoring younger staff rising through the hierarchy it
challenges their own status and sacrifice. The traditional prize of partnership status was
rejected by some participants as not worth the rigours of the competition:
I have announced myself as off partnership track and for a couple of reasons: I did not
see myself as wanting to take that traditional path and my vision of being partner of a
large law firm is like a pie eating contest where the prize is more pie! (our emphasis)
(laughs) (P26, Non-partnership track lawyer, International law firm, US)
In other words, the struggle to achieve partnership (the pie-eating contest) led to continued
self-sacrifice (more pie) when its status was achieved. This was for a number of reasons,
including the high workloads and personal sacrifice required, masculine-gendered traits such
as competitiveness, and the fact that the actual work of being a partner was unappealing,
leading the women in our study to question whether partnership status was desirable for
them, and whether an alternative form of career path would be more suitable.
Despite the continued prevalence of the tournament model, professional services firms have
engaged with the provision of alternatives models of career, many of which have been taken
up by women. Our data suggest, however, that firms are not as accepting of these models as
may be assumed, and continue to prioritise the tournament model though subtle internal
closure mechanisms which demonstrate the clash of perceptions between the traditional
model of ‘success’ and the alternative forms. This is demonstrated within the data through
three forms of firm behaviour and culture which we identify as: to moralise, minimise and
marginalise.
Moralise
Our data suggest that firms moralise on the traditional career model. Aspiration towards
partnership is defined as the only way to succeed, such that women who do not seek
partnership status are treated with ‘disbelief’, suggesting that the cultural model of success
with partnership as its pinnacle is deeply engrained:
I have had a lot of partners take me out to lunch and want to test out why I didn’t want
to be a partner which I suppose was flattering but there was this sort of disbelief and
…certainly for people who are long time traditional partners there is a sense of why
don’t you want what I want, what I have, what I sacrificed for? (P26, Nonpartnership track lawyer, International law firm, US)
While firms may offer or allow alternative career paths, women may be made to feel
ungrateful if they choose not to pursue the partnership route:
There is room for someone who doesn't want to be a partner but what you want to
make sure is that they are not in the way of somebody who does, so you don't want
someone who wants to be a manager, a career manager, holding up the opportunities
of someone who does [want to make partner]. (P5, Equity partner – Audit, Top 10
firm, UK)
Here there is a sense that by ‘holding up the opportunities’ of others, an individual is not
playing by the rules of a supposedly meritocratic tournament, where dedication, long-hours,
client service and competence (Anderson-Gough, Grey, & Robson, 2001; Kumra &
Vinnicombe, 2008; Wald, 2010) lead to a fair distribution of career possibilities.
This quote from a lawyer, who has moved into a knowledge management role in her law firm
rather than the traditional partnership route, summarises the different ways that firms
moralise on career, and the consequent dilemmas it creates for women:
The interesting thing is that the firm has won some awards for being a good place for
women but we continually have this struggle, …this office has never in its history had
more than two women partners at any one time, this office has been here for 25 years,
so they do a lot of great things in this office, they have done a great job of hiring
women, we have more women associates than men here but they just, for whatever
reason, they were never able to, whatever the circumstances were, women did not
achieve partnership in this office ...and so I was starting to feel a lot of pressure with
you know I was going to solve these problems because they had someone coming up
who might make it…it was a lot of pressure and I felt I was kind getting it from both
sides, from management who were like great we have got a woman coming along
who we can make partner and this will look better, and I think from the women as
well, the women associates who wanted to have a role model, and you know that was
tough for me, I am very passionate about women’s issues and women’s positions in
law firms and that was difficult to think that you know I can achieve the traditional
notion of success and be a role model for people but I just thought personally I don’t
want to go through that. (P26, Non-partnership track lawyer, International law firm,
US)
Firstly, firms, aware they have a poor track record in retaining women and promoting them to
partnership, aspire to change either the situation or perceptions of it. They want to ‘look
better’ to clients and the wider public by being seen to have women achieving partnership,
putting ‘pressure’ on women to help ‘solve these problems’ and become ‘role models’.
Secondly, it demonstrates that women professionals want to have female role models whom
they can potentially follow to higher levels of the hierarchy. Thirdly, however, it places the
burden on women themselves who, despite being encouraged to achieve partnership status,
do not necessarily see it as something they aspire to because the role itself is not attractive.
While this is perfectly understandable from this individual’s perspective, it shows that the
firms themselves have done little, if anything, to understand why women would not aspire to
partnership as it stands. They continue to moralise on partnership being the only option,
while cementing women’s dilemmas as a problem with the individuals not being right for
partnership rather than the firm not doing enough to make the role attractive to women.
Minimise
For those women who reject the tournament model of partnership success they experience
their position as lesser, or ‘other’, and minimised against full partnership status. For example,
unlike in the tournament model where procedures are long-standing, with alternatives while a
firm may be open to suggestions, little help is given and the onus is on the individual to make
a case:
I am kind of stumbling through with creating this position and by announcing I didn’t
want to be a partner and I wanted to find another role for myself, the firm was actually
really great, though it’s got to make business sense but they were open to me
proposing something else. (P26, Non-partnership track lawyer, International law firm,
US)
One of the lawyers, for example, while still practising litigation, was trying to develop a
niche as a report and case writing expert, which required a commitment from the firm to
support the nature of the role in what might be said to be a risky undertaking:
What I would like to do is develop a practice that is largely based on writing… I think
it will be possible, its unusual, so with everyone I talk to, one has to get the decision
makers over the hump of this being unusual, this is not what they are used to, this
isn’t the path other people have taken, and my practice group leader would like me to
do more trials... There are actually a number of shareholders2 here who are very
positive about the idea in concept and now it’s the work of getting it into practice, I
think I have got enough supporters for the idea. (P24, Associate Lawyer, International
law firm, US)
As this role is ‘unusual – not what they are used to’, she is striving against the prevailing
career norms to create an alternative self-defined position, which has support in theory but
has yet to be proved in practice with some in the firm preferring her to continue her existing
work and ‘do more trials’.
For some in alternative roles, it is clear that being ‘staff’ rather than a practicing professional
is minimised and viewed as inferior in status:
I have gotten some reaction from people, a lot of it has been kind of indirect, about
taking myself off the partnership track and going into knowledge management, I have
sort of... not failed, but that they are kind of disappointed, and particularly because a
woman has chosen to take this role, and I think there is a lot of stigma in the firm with
whether you are a lawyer or whether you are staff. (P26, Non-partnership track
lawyer, International law firm, US)
Being regarded as something of a failure or disappointment, subject to stigma, suggests such
roles are positioned as lesser in the organisation.
2
In this firm, as a limited liability partnership, the partners are known are shareholders.
Even those who achieve non-equity partner status, such as this lawyer, have a sense of
awareness that this is an inferior or marginal position in comparison to full equity partnership
status, and to some extent, as she puts it, a ‘pretend’, made-up or imaginary role:
I suspect that what it means is I will never be what’s called an equity shareholder
where you are genuinely an owner, we have non-equity shareholders and it’s kind of
pretend shareholder, you don’t hold any actual ownership but you get the title because
for one reason or another they are willing to give you it. I prefer to refer to it as the
Fisher Price shareholder (laughs...) Look at me I am driving a car! (P27, Non-equity
partner, International law firm, US)
Marginalise
For the women in our study, the effect of undertaking alternative career paths is that they risk
being marginalised in the career structures of their organisation, despite there being no
explicit justification for this as an alternative business case for supportive roles could be
made.
However, the masculine model of career success perpetuated within the tournament model is
very strong such that there is little recognition of there being any other way forward, and for
some women these challenges may be perceived as particularly difficult, arising from the
competitive working environment:
And it's very challenging and the demands are great and the rigour is high and it's not
a handholding culture so I think unless you are either naturally inclined or very
deliberate initially it is a very difficult place to succeed particularly for women (P22,
Professional support lawyer, International law firm, US)
Resonating with Sommerlad’s (2002) study of female lawyers, the women in our study
recognised that there are some indirect forms of discrimination against people with caring
responsibilities involved in professional patterns of work, even in those specialisms identified
as generally more women friendly. Women with caring responsibilities struggled to attain
the high billable working hours required for advancement to more senior levels and found
structural and cultural barriers persist in networking and business development opportunities:
Networking responsibilities a lot of times fall at what appear to be the prime times for
doing things, you know, that whole 5 – 8 p.m. is the worst time of the day when you
have young children. (P23, Associate Lawyer, International law firm, US)
As a result, in our study, several of the women had already embarked on alternative paths in
their career trajectories, which enabled them to remain in their professional services firms,
but which meant that they were unlikely to achieve partnership, had been ruled out as partner
or had ruled themselves out as partners due to the sorts of difficulties discussed above. Two
of the lawyers had moved in to Of Counsel roles, which in one firm were relatively clearly
and positively defined as an extended career path that did not rule out being a partner at some
point in the future:
There have been many more examples of people taking a variety of paths to get to
partner, and even what partner is now is changed, so I think that the firm is definitely
receptive to it, more people now are going through the Of Counsel role and then
maybe moving on to partner later. (P25, Equity Partner, International law firm, US)
In another firm, however, the Of Counsel route was more ambiguous, positioned as a route
for people who did not have the business development skills or billable hours to be promoted
to partner:
The other path of career is Of Counsel which is for people who don’t want to be
considered for partnership and that path tends to [be] where they don’t have the
business development opportunities or they are kind of acting in a consulting role
where it’s harder to get the blocks of hours... it’s still not well defined yet, everybody
seems to want to become Of Counsel because you want to get promoted. (Nonpartnership track lawyer – Of Counsel)
In both cases, however, there is a substantial degree of uncertainty about the future position
of such roles, which can be construed as precarious and marginal, but accepted as better than
not being promoted at all, or being advised to leave the firm in the up-or-out tournament
model.
Discussion
Within professional services firms, partnership status has long been highly valorised as the
ultimate pinnacle of success. Making partner brings status, recognition and financial reward,
through a share of the firm’s profits in the case of equity partners, and the tournament model,
whereby candidates compete with each for a small number of partnership positions is
designed to ensure that only the highest calibre candidates survive the ‘up-or-out’ process.
However, the tournament model is conceptualised as a masculine model of success, with
connotations of self-promotion and competition, the heroic attainment of the higher levels of
the hierarchy, long working hours and dedication to the role. Women tend to be deemed as
unsuitable for partnership positions, as promotion patterns privilege masculine organisational
knowledge and behaviours such as information about key clients, knowledge of the unwritten
organisational rules, impression management, social capital, physical capital, access to
networks, and other informal closure processes typical of male-dominated organisations
(Crompton, 1987; Grugulis & Stoyanova, 2012; Haynes, 2008; Kumra & Vinnicombe, 2010;
Sommerlad, 2002).
The introduction of alternative career paths within professional services firms has been
recognised as an increasing phenomenon within the sector (Almer et al., 2012; Lupu, 2012;
Malhotra et al., 2010) to roles that include Of Counsel lawyering; management roles in the
organisation such as in Human Resources, Knowledge Management or writing support; or
non-equity partners. The momentum for these alternatives may be said to be twofold: first,
from firms, faced with the changing demographics of increasingly numerically feminised
professions (Bolton & Muzio, 2008) and also equal opportunity legislation, recognise the
need to retain some investment in skilled professionals and provide new opportunities which
equalise the position of men and women. Second, from women, recognising that the route to
partnership requires considerable business development and networking, which can be
difficult due to the structural issues of not being available at particular times, for example due
to caring responsibilities, compounded by cultural issues around ‘not being asked’, or
included in ways that appeal to them, as well as women’s different conceptions of career
success (O'Neil et al., 2008).
The way the provision of alternative career paths are posited to work is illustrated in Figure 1,
where such paths are ostensibly a firm response to a gender neutral conceptualisation of
career, with the level of gender equality moving from low to higher, away from the masculine
tournament to a gender neutral equal alternative.
INSERT FIGURE ONE HERE
However, the way alternative career paths operate in practice is quite different. As Bolton and
Muzio (2008: 295) indicate, despite professions being increasingly dependent on numerical
feminisation, women are often marginalised in female specialisms with the results that
‘professional projects remain a masculine cultural project that repress, oppress and
subordinate the feminine as they attempt to attain and retain professional status according to
the prevailing male paradigm’. Though positioned as yielding greater flexibility to those
working in PSFs, through a more open career structure with a variety of destinations, it is
evident that anything but partnership remains ‘second best’.
We thus go beyond existing studies which illustrate the existence and feminisation of
alternative career paths, by identifying the processes by which these paths actually perpetuate
a gendered career construct and fail to provide a gender neutral career alternative. Our study
found that firms operate internal closure mechanisms which prioritise the tournament career
model over alternative paths by moralising, minimising and marginalising. This is illustrated
in Figure 2.
INSERT FIGURE TWO HERE
Moralising occurs through the assertion of the superiority of partnership over other forms of
career success. Only the upwardly mobile career is fully supported, with those wishing to
come off the partnership track given the opportunity to remain, but only as long as they ‘stay
out of the way’ of those who wish to progress and as long as they realise this is potentially a
terminal decision. Minimising of the alternative tracks occurs through the lack of recognition
and provision given to the alternatives compared to the long-standing, well-defined position
of the partner. The need for a business case to define some alternative paths continues to
draw on the masculine model of competitive business development which underpins the
tournament, rather than to evaluate other forms of skills which may add value to the firm.
Moreover, for those still practising but not promoted to full equity partnership or shareholder
status, there is a clear recognition that non-equity roles are inferior – the ‘Fisher Price’
pretend role. For those entering firm management roles instead of continuing to practise law
or accounting there is ‘stigma’ associated with being in a less-prestigious support role. The
result is marginalisation which occurs because the career structures in the organisation
remain masculine, tending to favour the dominant group, and cementing the alternative as
‘other’: different but not equal. The outcome, therefore, is that no element of the tournament
model is unsettled or challenged. Despite the potential for movement to a gender neutral
alternative career conceptualisation, the actual effect of these internal closure mechanisms is
that gender equality remains low.
Concepts of career success continue to rely predominantly on traditional (masculine)
outcomes and externalized definitions of success (O'Neil et al., 2008), and structural gender
discrimination arises because firms fail to question and alter their dominant ideal of what
constitutes appropriate and effective ways to define and accomplish work, recognise and
reward competence, understand and interpret behaviour (Ely & Meyerson, 2000b). Moreover,
this gendered organisation of work acts to perpetuate rather than undermine gendered
inequalities in organisations (Acker, 2006). Rather than the introduction of alternative career
paths being an emancipatory broadening mechanism within PSFs, providing a variety of
career paths for individuals to choose between depending upon their career aspirations and
whole life circumstances, they cement further the single masculine model of success evident
in such firms (Kumra & Vinnicombe, 2008). The effect is to draw into sharper focus the
essential criteria for success, the deployment of subtle internal closure mechanisms
perpetuating these criteria, and the inevitable positioning of those unable to meet these
requirements in second class (alternative) positions.
Conclusion
In this article we have evaluated the traditional tournament model of career progression in
professional services firms, against alternative career paths, which are predominantly
undertaken by women. Our study reiterates that career models in professional services firms
are highly masculine in nature, and progression through the tournament towards partnership
remains the overarching model. The availability of alternative career paths could in theory
support a more flexible, inclusive, gender neutral model of career success; however, in
practice, these alternative routes fail to achieve a gender equal conceptualisation of career.
The empirical contribution of our study is to identify the nature and effects of internal closure
mechanisms through which firms continue to perpetuate the superiority of the tournament
career model: these are processes of ‘moralising’, ‘minimizing’ and ultimately
‘marginalising’ those engaging with alternative models of career advancement. We
conceptualise the alternative career pathway not as different but equal, but rather a means of
perpetuating the masculine tournament model of success bolstered by these internal closure
mechanisms. The effect is that alternative career paths within law and accounting firms
achieve a way of retaining women’s skills and presence without in any way challenging or
unsettling the prevailing hegemonic masculine promotion to partner process or the
fundamentally masculine culture, with therefore little likelihood that outmoded and
discriminatory practices will cease.
Table 1 Characteristics of Participants
Position
1
Non-equity partner – audit
La
w
or
Acg
A
UK/
US
Firm type
Age
Family Status
UK
Big 4
39
married, 1 child
2
Senior Manager – taxation
A
UK
Big 4
37
married, no children
3
Manager (Career break)
A
UK
Mid-tier firm
38
married, 3 children
4
Senior Manager – taxation
A
UK
Top 10 firm
33
partner, 2 children
5
Equity Partner - Audit
A
UK
Top 10 firm
39
partner, 1 child
6
Manager - Corporate Finance
A
UK
Top 10 firm
31
partner, 1 child
7
Finance manager
A
UK
39
married, 1 child
8
Manager - Personal taxation
A
UK
Venture capital firm,
ex Big 4
Top 10 firm
44
married, 2 children
9
Manager – Audit
A
UK
Big 4
28
partner, 1 child
10
Manager – Audit
A
UK
Big 4
33
partner, 3 children
11
Manager – Audit
A
UK
Top 10 firm
41
married, 2 children
12
In-house Lawyer
L
UK
37
married, 2 children
13
Associate lawyer
L
UK
Manufacturing company,
ex law firm
International law firm
37
14
Associate lawyer
L
UK
International law firm
36
married, 1 child &
pregnant
partner, 1 child
15
Partnership track lawyer
L
UK
International law firm
38
married, 2 children
16
Manager – Audit
A
US
Mid-tier firm
30
married, 1 child
17
Equity Partner – Audit
A
US
Big 4
60
18
Audit partner now freelance
A
US
Big 4
53
married, 2 children,
grandchildren
married, 2 children
19
Senior manager
A
US
Mid-tier firm
34
single, no children
20
HR manager
A
US
Big 4
38
married, 1 child
21
Business development manager
A
US
Mid-tier firm, ex Big 4
32
single, no children
22
Professional support lawyer
L
US
International law firm
35
married, 1 child
23
Associate Lawyer
L
US
International law firm
36
divorced, 2 children
24
Associate Lawyer
L
US
International law firm
38
married, no children
25
Equity Partner
L
US
International law firm
45
single, no children
26
Non-partnership track lawyer
L
US
International law firm
40
partner, no children
27
Non-equity Partner
L
US
International law firm
44
partner, no children.
28
Equity Partner
L
US
International law firm
62
married, 2 children
29
Associate lawyer
L
US
International law firm
28
married, no children
30
Equity Partner
L
US
International law firm
54
married, 2 children
Figure 1
Traditional Model
of Career Success
Tournament model :
Up-or-out
Competitive
Long-hours
Masculine
(Galanter & Palay, 1991; Gilson & Mnookin, 1989;
Wilkins and Gulati, 1998)
Gender Neutral Model of
Career Success
Alternative Career Paths:
Reflect Labour Market
Flexible
Corporate
Inclusive
(Malhotra et al. 2010, Almer et al. 2012)
Potential Gender Equality in Conceptualisation of Career Success
Low
Figure 1
High
Figure 2
Traditional Model
of Career Success
Tournament model :
Up-or-out
Competitive
Long-hours
Masculine
(Galanter & Palay, 1991; Gilson & Mnookin,
1989; Wilkins and Gulati, 1998)
Gender Neutral Model of
Career Success
Alternative Career Paths:
Reflect Labour Market
Flexible
Corporate
Inclusive
Cements Traditional
Model of Career Success
Deployment of
Internal closure
mechanisms
(Witz 1992; Ackroyd & Muzio,
2007)
(Malhotra et al. 2010, Almer et al. 2012)
Identified as:
moralise
minimise
marginalise
Actual Gender Equality in Conceptualisation of Career Success
Low
Figure 2
Low
References
Acker, J. (1990). Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender &
Society, 4(2), 139 - 158.
Acker, J. (2006). Inequality Regimes: Gender, Class, and Race in Organizations. Gender &
Society, 20(4), 441 - 464.
Acker, J. (2012). Gendered organizations and intersectionality: problems and possibilities.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 31(3), 214 - 224.
Ackroyd, S., & Muzio, D. (2007). The Reconstructed Professional Firm: Explaining Change
in English Legal Practices. Organization Studies, 48(5), 1 - 19.
Almer, E. D., Lightbody, M. G., & Single, L. E. (2012). Successful promotion or segregation
from partnership? An examination of the "post-senior manager" position in public
accounting and the implications for women's careers. Accounting Forum, 36(2), 122 133.
Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. (2001). 'Tests of Time': Organisational Time
Reckoning and the Making of Accountants in Two Multi-national Accounting Firms.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26(2), 99 -122.
Anderson-Gough, F., Grey, C., & Robson, K. (2005). 'Helping Them to Forget..': the
Organizational Embedding of Gender Relations in Public Audit Firms. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 30(5), 469 - 490.
Bolton, S., & Muzio, D. (2008). The paradoxical process of feminization in the professions:
the case of established, aspiring and semi-professions. Work, Employment and
Society, 22(2), 281 - 299.
Brockman, J. (2001). Gender in the Legal Profession: Fitting or Breaking the Mould.
Vancouver: UBC Press.
Cook, A., & Glass, C. (2013). Women and Top Leadership Positions: Towards an
Institutional Analysis. Gender, Work & Organization, n/a-n/a.
Crompton, R. (1987). Gender and Accountancy: A Response to Tinker and Neimark.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 12(1), 103 - 110.
Davies, C. (1996). The sociology of the professions and the profession of gender. Sociology,
30(4), 661 - 678.
Durbin, S. (2002). Women, Power and the Glass Ceiling: Current Research Perspectives.
Work, Employment & Society, 16(4), 755-759.
Eagly, A. H., & Carli, L. L. (2007). Through the Labyrinth: The Truth about how Women
Become Leaders. Boston MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Ely, R., & Meyerson, D. (2000a). Advancing Gender Equity in Organisations: The Challenge
and Importance of Maintaining a Gender Narrative. Organization, 7(4), 589 - 608.
Ely, R., & Meyerson, D. (2000b). Theories of Gender in Organizations: A new approach to
organizational analysis and change. Research on Organizational Behaviour, 22, 103 151.
Galanter, M., & Palay, T. (1991). Tournament of Lawyers: The Transformation of the Big
Law Firm. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gilson, R., & Mnookin, R. (1989). Coming of Age in a Corporate Law Firm: The Economics
of Associate Career Patterns. Stanford Law Review, 41(3), 567 - 595.
Grugulis, I., & Stoyanova, D. (2012). Social Capital and Networks in Film and TV: Jobs for
the Boys? Organization Studies, 33(10), 1311-1331.
Hagan, J., & Kay, F. (1995). Gender in Practice: A study of Lawyers' Lives. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Haynes, K. (2008). (Re)figuring Accounting and Maternal Bodies: The Gendered
Embodiment of Accounting Professionals. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
33(4 - 5), 328 - 348.
Haynes, K. (2012). Body Beautiful?: Gender, Identity and the Body in Professional Services
Firms. Gender, Work & Organization, 19(5), 489 - 507.
Haynes, K. (2013). Gender and Diversity Challenges in Professional Services Firms. In K.
Haynes & I. Grugulis (Eds.), Managing Services: Challenges and Innovations (pp.
66-82). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2008). A Study of the Promotion to Partner Process in a
Professional Services Firm: How Women are Disadvantaged. British Journal of
Management, S1(19), S65 - S74.
Kumra, S., & Vinnicombe, S. (2010). Impressing for Success: A Gendered Analysis of a Key
Social Capital Accumulation Strategy. Gender, Work & Organization, 17(5), 521 546.
Law Society. (2010). Trends in the solicitors’ profession: Annual statistical report 2009.
London: The Law Society of England and Wales.
Law Society. (2012). International Women In Law Summit 2012: Setting the agenda for
change. London: Law Society.
Lowendahl, B. (2000). Strategic Management of Professional Service Firms (2nd ed.).
Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press.
Lupu, I. (2012). Approved routes and alternative paths: The construction of women's careers
in large accounting firms. Evidence from the French Big Four. Critical Perspectives
on Accounting, 23(4-5), 351 - 369.
MacDonald, K. (1995). The Sociology of the Professions. London: Sage.
Malhotra, N., Morris, T., & Smets, M. (2010). New career models in UK professional service
firms: From up-or-out to up-and-going-nowhere? The International Journal of Human
Resource Management, 21(9), 1396 - 1413.
Morris, T., & Pinnington, A. (1998). Promotion to partner in professional service firms.
Human Relations, 51(1), 3 - 24.
Muzio, D., & Tomlinson, J. (2012). Editorial: Researching Gender, Inclusion and Diversity in
Contemporary Professions and Professional Organizations. Gender, Work &
Organization, 19(5), 455-466.
Nemoto, K. (2013). When culture resists progress: masculine organizational culture and its
impacts on the vertical segregation of women in Japanese companies. Work,
Employment & Society, 27(1), 153-169.
O'Neil, D., Hopkins, M. M., & Bilmoria, D. (2008). Women's Careers at the Start of the 21st
Century: Patterns and Paradoxes. Journal of Business Ethics, 80(4), 727 - 743.
Ohlott, P. J., Ruderman, M. N., & McCauley, C. D. (1994). Gender differences in managers'
developmental job experiences. Academy of Management Journal, 37(1), 46 - 57.
Sommerlad, H. (2002). Women solicitors in a fractured profession: intersections of gender
and professionalism in England and Wales. International Journal of the Legal
Profession, 9(3), 213 - 234.
Sommerlad, H. (2004). Shaping the size and composition of the Profession. International
Journal of the Legal Profession, 11(1 & 2), 67 - 79.
Sommerlad, H. (2007). Researching and Theorising the Processes of Professional Identity
Formation. Journal of Law and Society, 34(2), 190 - 217.
Sommerlad, H. (2012). Minorities, merit and misrecognition in the globalized profession.
Fordham Law Review, 80(6), 2481 - 2512.
Spence, A. (2012). Big Four Firm Juggles the Numbers to Address Lack of Diversity, The
Times, 2 October.
Stake, J. E., Dau-Schmidt, K. G., & Mukhopadhaya, K. (2007). Income and Career
Satisfaction in the Legal Profession: Survey Data from Indiana Law School
Graduates. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4(4), 939 - 981.
Travers, C., & Pemberton, C. (2000). Think career global, but act local: understanding
networking as a culturally differentiated career skill. In R. J. Davidson (Ed.), Women
in Management: Current Research Issues (Vol. 2, pp. 187 - 209). London: Sage.
van den Brink, M., & Benschop, Y. (2011). Gender practices in the construction of academic
excellence: Sheep with five legs. Organization, 19(4), 507-524.
von Nordenfycht, A. (2010). What is a Professional Service Firm? Toward a Theory and
Taxonomy of Knowledge-Intensive Firms Academy of Management Review, 35(1),
155 - 174.
Wald, E. (2010). The Changing professional Landscape of Large Law Firms, Glass Ceilings
and Dead Ends: Professional Ideologies, Gender Stereotypes and the future of women
lawyers at large firms. Fordham Law Review, 78(5), 2245 - 2284.
Wilkins, D., & Gulati, M. (1996). Why are there so few black lawyers in corporate law firms?
An institutional analysis. California Law Review, 84(3), 496 - 625.
Witz, A. (1992). Professions and Patriarchy. London: Routledge.