How can we explain the “voluntary servitude” that reigns in audit firms? A survey conducted among their employees shows that the cause is to be found in the spirit of competition and the cult of elitism.
Sébastien Stenger’s book deals with the submission to work of employees of auditing and consulting firms. These international groups, also called ” big four “, second their employees to other companies in order to provide services (in auditing, legal advice, etc.). The author starts from a paradoxical observation: how can we explain that auditors invest so much in their daily activity, working long days and undergoing high levels of pressure? What is the basis for their submission to the organization and objectives of their company? Echoing this questioning, S. Stenger explains that the employees of these firms strive to this extent mainly because of the competition that reigns there. From an organizational point of view, this is established by the “up or out” system, i.e. the obligation to perform and progress in the hierarchy of statuses from one year to the next, under penalty of having to leave the company. From the point of view of individuals, this competition is internalized by subjective processes of adherence to this system, which translate into a desire both to distinguish between the different auditors and to identify with an elite.
An ethnographic and interactionist investigation
Awarded the “ The world » of academic research, S. Stenger’s book is based on his doctoral thesis. Although registered in management sciences, this thesis was largely based on an ethnographic approach. The author conducted participant observation as part of a three-month internship in the “audit” department of a consulting firm belonging to the ” big four “. He also conducted more than forty interviews with different profiles of employees of audit firms in Paris. Among the many references used, we find symbolic interactionism, which conceives of individuals as capable of adapting to the constraints of their professional environment and developing strategies. This theoretical framework is consistent with the immersive survey conducted as close as possible to social interactions. That being said, we also find many references to Thorstein Veblen and Pierre Bourdieu, allowing us to shed light on the symbolic logic of hierarchy and distinction that reign in this universe.
A competition orchestrated, internalized and experienced differently
To present its research results, the book is structured in three main parts. The first part deals with the organizational constraints that weigh on auditors: the need to acquire advanced technical knowledge (particularly in accounting), to possess commercial and relational qualities, or even to respect the system ” up or out “. The latter assumes that listeners cultivate a “courtesan life” made up of networks and alliances, forcing them “to become entrepreneurs of their own reputation” (p. 101). The second part, which probably has a key status in the book, addresses the representations that make all of these constraints legitimate, in particular those generated by the system ” up or out “. The author develops the different reasons for acting of auditors, such as career progression, interest in the profession or even remuneration. Above all, the author exposes the reason for acting most present in the discourse of these auditors who aspire to distinguish themselves socially by belonging to an elite. They adhere to these logics of status distinction with the help of a work ethos that the author describes as agonistic. Auditors thus have representations and beliefs in line with the hyperselective functioning of the organization, producing forms of judgment of the work of people that legitimize hierarchies. Such an ethos varies according to the position of audit firms in the business space, a variation illustrated with a comparison to the ethos of employees of investment banks and corporate strategy firms (the ” big three »). This part ends with an analysis of the origins of this agonistic ethos. They are rooted in the academic socialization pursued in preparatory schools and business schools, and more precisely, in the culture of work, urgency, and permanent evaluation that they instill. The third part analyzes how auditors experience the uncertain course of their careers differently – the famous moral careers built on the basis of individual performance – and in particular, career exits. The author identifies three ideal types of auditor: those who experience failure and experience it very badly; those who distance themselves thanks to resources they draw from outside the firm; then those who change their values and no longer recognize themselves in the competition.
An enlightening dive into the heart of the world of auditing
A pleasant and fluid read, the book presents itself as a demonstration that weighs different hypotheses, unraveling as it progresses. At the end of each part, “step-by-step remarks” summarize the main ideas and serve as transitions. The book also has the advantage of avoiding theoretical jargon and excessive conceptualization, clarifying and making a complex reality accessible. To do this, it calls upon numerous excerpts from interviews that are always telling and relevant. As the title of the book indicates, the reader is immersed in the heart of audit firms. This is due to the advantage of the author’s position, as a former student of HECan intern in one of these firms, and therefore having precise knowledge of both the formal professional and organizational aspects, as well as the more informal and less visible dimensions. We obtain data that are relatively difficult to grasp when we stick to a classic survey where the researcher remains outside the field studied. The chapters devoted to auditors as entrepreneurs of their own reputation, revealing the logic of alliances and networks, of peer judgments and of hierarchization are examples of such a revelation effect. These data form the substrate – undoubtedly concentrated in an exacerbated manner in audit firms – that can be found in many other environments, including the public sector, like the academic world.
A nuanced critique of capitalist domination
These enlightening results are the fruit of an ethnographic investigation that has a real critical scope, even if the writing style did not insist on the explanation of such a critique. In fact, S. Stenger reveals the mechanisms, both objective and subjective, of the internalization of servitude and submission to capitalist domination, although he denies the existence of the latter on several occasions. This is a nuanced critique that is conducted here. The book certainly strives to highlight the heavy and transversal trends in the different categories of employees, which seems essential, while taking into account social differentiations: that of gender, the distinction between the strategic dispositions of auditors and those that are more technical or professional, the comparison with investment banks, or the different ways in which failure is experienced. The apprehension of such complexity also applies to the motives for action that the book reviews well. Even though the logic of competition prevails, it does not exclude the effect of careers, remuneration, interest in work, or even the constraint of the wage relationship which is embodied in the system ” up or out “, even if the latter also needs to be legitimized and internalized. We therefore understand the multifactorial dimension of this submission. These different contributions that constitute the work also raise certain questions.
Auditors freed from management control…?
S. Stenger’s positioning with regard to certain analyses raises a first question. In his introduction, he indicates that he wants to distance himself from research that has shown how managerial ideology exerts a hold on the subjectivity of workers, producing “voluntary servitude”. However, is it not also in this perspective that the author situates himself? Can we not consider in particular that the system ” up or out ” is part of a managerial mobilization system, and consequently a management tool designed to gain the support of listeners and therefore make the domination they are subject to more effective? Ultimately, does not the author also describe the way in which this “voluntary servitude” is created, both through the existence of this management system orchestrating competition, and adherence to constraints via an ethos of work and a corresponding educational socialization? In other words, why not consider that the system ” up or out ” is part of the normative constraints, requiring respect for a certain discipline and generating domination? There is no real contradiction or incompatibility between S. Stenger’s analysis and the work demonstrating managerial domination, but rather a continuity, even a proximity.
…and fully clairvoyant?
Following on from this first question, another one arises concerning the notions of beliefs and representations. Still in the introduction, S. Stenger specifies that “the members of these firms refuse to be reduced to “cultural idiots” (Garfinkel, 2007), manipulated and mystified by a managerial discourse whose domination and inculcation they would undergo without realizing it” (p. 20). It is true that the work highlights the criticisms and discontent of auditors far from being duped by the logic of exploitation at work in the firms. That being said, it also defines the notion of social ethos as “a set of beliefs and representations” (p. 181) and even speaks of “credentialism” (p. 207) regarding the belief in the meritocratic effect of the accumulation of diplomas. Does this symbolic, affective, competitive logic not therefore constitute a form of ideological manipulation which is certainly not absolute, but whose effectiveness is largely proven by the investigation?
Non-utilitarian reasons for action versus utilitarian motives for action?
Finally, another question arises when reading the book. It targets the opposition erected by S. Stenger between motives described as “extrinsic utilitarian” (such as career, remuneration) and a motive considered as non-utilitarian and intrinsic, that of the race for performance and competition. For the author, this second type of motive, which he also describes as symbolic and social, would be sufficient in itself to mobilize listeners, being disconnected from economic reasons. However, are not utilitarian motives for action also of a symbolic and social nature? Conversely, is the search for social prestige really so non-utilitarian? Doesn’t the importance given to self-esteem echo in some way the prevalence of economic valuation in our society? Ultimately, is the search for social prestige not linked to the fact that individuals are intimately aware that it can, sooner or later, be converted into economic value? Moreover, S. Stenger himself seems to recognize this when he recalls that “what further defines the group of belonging to which the listener aspires is its elitist dimension, the privilege of accessing spheres of power from an economic and symbolic point of view” (p. 129) or again that “the system “up or out“creates spectacular differences in reputations in order to allocate prestige and rewards in a differentiated manner” (p. 185). So many important questions, theoretical but also political, that this fascinating and stimulating book has the merit of bringing to light.