Marketing or Parrhesia

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 31 (2015) 23–43
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Critical Perspectives on Accounting

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cpa
Marketing or parrhesia: A longitudinal study of AICPA’s

shifting languages in times of turbulence
Marion Brivot a, Charles H. Cho b,*, John R. Kuhn c
a
École de comptabilité, Faculté des Sciences de l’Administration, Université Laval, Pavillon Palasis-Prince, 2325 rue de la Terrasse, Québec,
Québec G1 V 0A6, Canada
b
ESSEC Business School, 1 Avenue Bernard HIRSCH, CS 50105 Cergy, 95021 Cergy Pontoise Cedex, France
c
Crummer Graduate School of Business, Rollins College, 1000 Holt Ave, Winter Park, FL 32789, USA
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Article history: This paper examines how the U.S. accounting profession, through the American Institute of
Received 29 April 2014 Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), sought to restore its damaged reputation and re-
Received in revised form 11 April 2015 legitimize its claim to self-regulation after the Enron scandal. We do so by analyzing the
Accepted 12 April 2015
content of AICPA leaders’ web communications to members and outsiders of the Institute
Available online 25 April 2015
between 1997 and 2010 and draw upon the concepts of logics and discourse. We argue that
the marketing language surrounding the AICPA’s ‘‘Vision Project’’ prior to Enron (1997–
Keywords:
2001) is not durably supplanted by the language of parrhesia, celebrated during the Enron
Accountability
AICPA crisis management episode (2002–2004) – it reemerges after 2005, juxtaposed to
Critical parrhesia. This study contributes to increasing our understanding of the institutional
ENRON complexity of the accounting professional field by suggesting that this complexity is, in part,
Impression management cultivated and reproduced by AICPA leaders’ navigation between different conceptions of
Institutional logics being an accountant. Institutional complexity can thus be viewed as a resource, rather than a
Language constraint, which provides flexible impression management opportunities.
Parrhesia
ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Public interest
Our challenge is to properly decide which of our rich traditions are relevant. What basic elements of our
professionalism should be melted down and recast into new forms made of the same solid materials.
Stuart Kessler (1997; Past Chairman of the AICPA’s Board of Directors).
1. Introduction
On November 8, 2001, Enron, once the darling of Wall Street, admitted to inflating income by $586 million since 1997 and
filed for bankruptcy a few weeks later – the largest in U.S. history at the time (subsequently eclipsed by WorldCom in 2002).
The Enron scandal sent shockwaves through the global financial markets and is generally considered the catalyst, or at least
the starting point, for the loss of consumer confidence in the markets that resulted in the Stock Market Crash of 2002
(Rajagopalan, 2012). In the end, we saw the demise of one of the stalwarts of the public accounting profession, Arthur
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33(0)1-34-43-28-27.

E-mail addresses: marion.brivot@fsa.ulaval.ca (M. Brivot), cho@essec.edu (C.H. Cho), jkuhn@rollins.edu (J.R. Kuhn).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2015.04.001
1045-2354/ß 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
24 M. Brivot et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 31 (2015) 23–43
Andersen (founded in 1913), public condemnation of the profession itself, and passage of the Public Company Accounting
Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (a.k.a. Sarbanes-Oxley Act, SOX) – what many consider the most sweeping
financial reporting reform since the SEC Act of 1933, which was a result of the Great Depression. It is often claimed that the
Enron scandal and its aftermath precipitated a crisis of trust and confidence in the accounting profession1. No longer was it
seen as responsible and reliable gatekeepers of the market system. On the contrary, the profession’s self-regulation privilege
was compromised.
In this paper, our interest emanates from how a key collective actor–the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA, or the Institute) – responded to this worsening confidence. That is, we examine how the U.S. public
accounting profession, through the AICPA, sought to restore its damaged reputation and re-legitimize its claim to self-
regulation. We do so by analyzing the AICPA’s communications to members and outsiders of the profession between
1997 and 2010.
Discourses produced by actors who are understood to have power, authority, and/or a legitimate right to speak – such as
leaders of professional associations – are likely to have institutional effects because they prescribe certain ‘adequate’
behaviors and denounce other behaviors as disreputable. In this context, it may be costly for social agents to enact behaviors
that are not consistent with the prescription (Carpenter & Feroz, 2001). Studying the discourse used by AICPA leaders is thus
important, especially in times of turbulence, because professional associations contribute to constructing the accounting
professional ethos2; they discursively disseminate ‘‘specific conceptions of being an accountant, and what accountants can
do’’ (Cooper & Robson, 2006, p. 436). Moreover, different institutional logics compete in the accounting professional field
(Lander, Koene, & Linssen, 2013; Malsch & Gendron, 2013; Ramirez, 2013), including the social trustee logic and the
expertise logic of professionalism (Brint, 1994) and AICPA leaders’ discourse can contribute to transforming the tension
between existing logics, by rhetorically de-emphasizing one and re-emphasizing another, or by hybridizing language
borrowed from different logics in novel ways.
We draw on the literature on logics and discourse (Covaleski, Dirsmith, & Rittenberg, 2003; Phillips, Lawrence, & Hardy,
2004; Suddaby & Greenwood, 2005) for two reasons. First, discourses and counter-discourses can contribute to manipulating
existing institutional logics (Rao, Monin, & Durand, 2003)3. After all, institutions are built upon language4 (Berger &
Luckmann, 1967). Second, the accounting professional field is institutionally complex (Greenwood, Raynard, Kodeih,
Micelotta, & Lounsbury, 2011). When diverse logics collide the struggle can be settled at the discursive level, as convincingly
exemplified by Suddaby and Greenwood (2005)5.
We ask the following question:
How is the ‘‘institutional complexity’’ of the accounting field, characterized by the coexistence of at least two
contrasting logics, reflected in AICPA leaders’ discourse to members and outsiders of the Institute before, during and
after the Enron crisis management episode?
Our analysis suggests that the language of parrhesia (Foucault, 1999) was spoken by AICPA leaders during the crisis
management years (2002–2004). Yet, this language did not durably supplant the language of marketing (Picard, Durocher, &
Gendron, 2014; Picard, 2015) spoken in the pre-Enron years (1997–2001). From 2005 onwards, we find that the marketing
language reappears, although in a less ‘‘unashamed’’ way, but it is juxtaposed to the language of parrhesia.
Institutional complexity, we argue, is a resource rather than a constraint in this particular setting, because it allows AICPA
leaders to exploit the contradictions inherent to said institutional complexity and speak different languages in distinct ‘‘front
stage’’ performances (Goffman, 1959). This study contributes to the rising corpus of institutional studies that seek to
reintroduce actors into institutional arguments (see Lounsbury, 2008 for a review) and suggests that, far from mindlessly
complying with whatever dominant institutional demand is imposed on them, social actors are capable of reflecting on the
multiple rationalities proposed by contrasting logics, particularly when the institutional tension persists for a long period of
time, and can creatively construct their own assemblage by mixing elements selected from various frames of meaning.
We offer three insights: (1) we confirm that professional associations resort to impression management processes in
defending the profession’s interests in times of turbulence; (2) we suggest that analyzing the AICPA’s discourse is useful to
1
This claim should however be moderated by the fact that, unexpectedly, many audit firms benefited from the ‘crisis’ in question. The decision by US
Department of Justice to prosecute Andersen further reduced the already limited number of audit firms capable of auditing multinational corporations,
thereby increasing the power of the remaining four audit firms. This quasi-monopoly reportedly allowed these four firms to charge higher fees, as
documented by Asthana, Balsam and Kim’s and (2009) empirical analysis. In addition, thanks to SOX 404, audit firms found a new revenue stream – filing an
MR [management report] in 2004 reportedly increased audit fees by 98% or $697,890, according to Iliev (2010, p. 1166). Despite the profession’s tarnished
reputation, the business consequences of Enron on auditors have thus not been as negative as typically implied in the academic ‘Post-Enron’ accounting
literature.
2
Their influence is however not deterministic.
3
Said differently by Morales, Gendron and Guénin-Paracini (2014), discourses and discursive shifts influence the social construction of reality.
4
Institutional logics also have material elements (e.g., structures and practices), but Thornton, Ocasio and Lounsbury (2012) argue that these can
analytically be separated from symbolic elements (ideation and meaning).
5
The authors examined the debate, in the late 1990s, surrounding the idea of combining legal and accounting professionals within a single
multidisciplinary firm. They show that the most aggressive proponents of the multidisciplinary firms (including AICPA representatives and members of the
then Big 5 audit firms) persuaded their constituencies of the desirability and appropriateness of ‘‘one-stop-shopping’’ for clients of audit and legal services,
by discursively drawing on the ‘‘expertise logic’’ of professionalism and by discursively understating the ‘‘social trustee’’ logic of professionalism.
M. Brivot et al. / Critical Perspectives on Accounting 31 (2015) 23–43 25
understand the Institute leaders’ selective synthesis of the divergent rationalities enacted by two core logics in the
accounting field – professionalism and commercialism; and (3) we provide an empirical account of how tensions between
distinct institutional logics enable ‘‘bilingualism’’ (e.g., being able to switch between the language of parrhesia and that of
marketing) and flexible discursive impression management processes.
The paper continues as follows. In Section 2, we contextualize our research by reviewing the literature that focuses on
how regulators, accounting firms and professional associations respectively responded to the Enron crisis. In Section 3,
we explain why the accounting field is typically seen as ‘‘institutionally complex’’ in extant sociological literature on the
professions, and argue that the classic, social trustee logic of professionalism resonates with the language of parrhesia
whereas the commercial logic of professionalism resonates with the language of marketing. In Section 4, we highlight
that impression management processes are frequently used by individuals in institutionally complex settings to
navigate between the conflicting demands that emanate from different institutional logics, especially in times of
scandals. We then summarize our research methods (Section 5), present our analysis (Section 6), discuss and conclude
the study (Section 7).
2. The accounting profession’s response to the Enron crisis
Over the last 10 years, a plethora of research articles have been produced to analyze the root causes of the accounting
scandals of the beginning of the century and assess the impacts of the regulatory changes that followed. In this study, we
restrict our literature review to the way in which the public, accounting academics, regulators, members of the Big Four
accounting firms and spokespersons of the accounting profession in the United States respectively reacted to the Enron
crisis.
The Enron scandal triggered a withdrawal of the public’s quasi-default trust in investment markets and in corporate
financial reporting because of growing perceptions of fallibility of the accounting and audit expert systems (Brewster,
2003; Unerman & O’Dwyer, 2004). WorldCom added more fuel to the fire and reinforced the popular perception that
accounting and auditing were charlatan’s crafts. Accounting educators called for an ethics revival and a comprehensive
reassessment of accounting curriculum throughout the world (Amernic & Craig, 2004; Diamond, 2005; Neu, Friesen, &
Everett, 2003; Sikka, Haslam, Kyriacou, & Agrizzi, 2007). An increasing flow of sarcasm and mockery followed,
contributing to castigating accounting and audit professionals as incompetent, corrupt, or both (Jelinek & Jelinek, 2008).
Carnegie and Napier’s (2010) analysis of popular books about Enron, written for a general readership and published
between 2002 and 2006, find that the external image of accounting and accountants suffered greatly: ‘‘the traditional
accountant stereotype is mobilized almost in nostalgia for a time when accountants may have been boring but could be
relied on to be upright, independent and respectable (. . .). On the other hand, the business professional, seeking to please
the client, is shown to create serious concerns about the accounting profession’s integrity and competence’’ (Carnegie &
Napier, 2010, p. 374).
The regulatory response was multi-faceted and culminated into the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), shortly
followed by the mushrooming of new regulations elsewhere around the globe (Baker, Bealing, Nelson, & Staley, 2006;
Baker, Bédard, & Prat dit Hauret, 2014; Malsch & Gendron, 2011). Auditors, following SOX’s section 404, are required to
perform more extensive tests and issue a separate opinion on internal controls. An enhanced role is also given to audit
committees in selecting and monitoring auditors. One of the most frequent claims, in the classic post Enron academic
literature, is that auditing activities have been transformed, as a result of SOX, ‘‘from a self-regulated industry overseen
by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to an industry that is directly controlled by a quasi-governmental
agency, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB)’’ (DeFond & Francis, 2005, p. 6). Today, the PCAOB sets
the quality criteria, auditing standards, and ethical norms to be followed by audit firms and annually inspects (since
2003) whether audit firms observe the rules. If noncompliance is detected, the PCAOB has the power to revoke an audit
firm’s license (Jelinek & Jelinek, 2008) and to inflict professionally lethal sanctions to individual partners (Burrowes,
Kastantin, & Novicevic, 2004)6.
Accounting firms’ reactions have been evolving with time. The initial response of Big N firm experts demonstrates no
particular shock or disbelief regarding the accounting techniques used by Enron and Andersen, since those techniques,
although aggressive, complied with the strict letter of U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) (Unerman &
O’Dwyer, 2004). Yet, they eventually announced that they would modify their audit approaches to be more conservative in
nature (Cahan & Zhang, 2006; Dunne, Falk, Forker, & Powell, 2008; Krishnan, 2007) and realigned the composition of their
client base to avoid high-litigation/risk companies and industries (Abidin, Beattie, & Goodacre, 2010; Hogan & Martin, 2009;
Kohlbeck, Mayhew, Murphy, & Wilkins, 2008; Landsman, Nelson, & Rountree, 2009). Shifts in the Big Four’s discourses
regarding audit methodologies have also been noticed, from a prior-Enron focus on ‘business risk’ and making the audit
6
These threats should however be taken with a grain of salt. Some studies suggest that the accounting profession has in fact bloomed since Enron – audit
fees and the Big 4 premium increased, especially for riskier clients, as documented by Asthana et al. (2009). In addition, ‘‘most of Arthur Andersen’s
employees have been absorbed by other accounting firms and their demise has proven to be a windfall for the rest of the industry’’ (Baker et al., 2006, p. 32).
Moreover, although PCAOB inspections might have positively influenced audit quality (Carcello, Hollingsworth, & Mastrolia, 2011; DeFond and Lennox,
2011), auditors’ independence is still a major issue of concern (Law, 2010) and studying the net effect of SOX has proven very difficult (Iliev, 2010).
‘valuable’ as a business tool, to a post-Enron focus on ‘audit quality’, where increased priority is given to acquiring ‘evidence’,
‘triangulating’ data, following audit procedure and documenting every step of due audit process (Khalifa, Sharma,
Humphrey, & Robson, 2007)7.
Efforts by accounting associations to arrest threats to the legitimacy of the profession following corporate scandals are
common and expected both by accountants and non-accountants (see, for example, Carnegie & O’Connell, 2012). Obviously,
in the United States, the AICPA did not sit idly. The Institute’s leaders sent positive messages about the post-Enron state of the
profession (Carnegie & Napier, 2010) to convince both their demoralized members and outsiders that the profession did not
deserve to be perceived as Public Enemy Number One. Rogers, Dillard, & Yuthas (2005) analyzed the AICPA’s public
statements during one year (September 2001 to September 2002) and found that while three main image restoration
strategies were used (proposals for taking corrective actions; reducing offensiveness via bolstering; evading responsibilities
via defeasibility), none of them involved admitting guilt.
Before analyzing how the AICPA sought to restore the profession’s damaged reputation in the long run, we now review the
tension between the classic, social trustee logic of professionalism and the commercialized logic of professionalism in the
accounting field. The tension between these logics forms the core of the accounting field’s ‘‘institutional complexity’’ and has
been denounced as one of the main causes of the profession’s responsibility in the Enron scandal (Gendron & Spira, 2010;
Guénin-Paracini & Gendron, 2010; Wyatt, 2004).
3. Institutional complexity, parrhesia and marketing
Alford and Friedland (1985) and Friedland and Alford (1991) use the term ‘institutional logic’ to represent the notion that
an institutional order possesses one central frame of meaning. This logic provides social actors with an interpretation to their
reality – it shapes their values, interests, assumptions, identities and ‘‘guides decision making in a field’’ (Lounsbury, 2007, p.
289).
Tensions between logics may be observed between various institutional orders (Thornton & Ocasio, 2008) or within the
same institutional order (see Greenwood et al., 2011 for a review of empirical illustrations). ‘‘Institutional complexity’’,
defined by these authors as incompatible prescriptions arising from conflicting logics, increasingly characterizes
professional services fields in general (Thornton, Ocasio, & Lounsbury, 2012), and the accounting field in particular (Ezzamel,
Robson, & Stapleton, 2012; Kilfoyle, 2012; Lander et al., 2013; Lounsbury, 2008; Malsch & Gendron, 2013).
Among the various logics that coexist within professional fields, the commercial logic emphasizes revenue maximization
and assimilates the bourgeois values of utilitarianism, expertise and efficacy8 (Brint, 1994); whereas, the classic professional
logic (also called ‘social trustee’ or ‘fiduciary’ logic, see for instance Lander et al., 2013) underlines individual autonomy at
work, altruism, disinterestedness, moral righteousness, and a passion to serve the public (Dubar, 2010). This tension is not
new, has been studied extensively, and is eloquently summarized in Humphrey, Moizer, and Turely (1992, p. 147): ‘‘Most
notable is the distinction between the view that auditing is a socially-oriented function in which auditors are portrayed as
ethical, socially responsible individuals (. . .) and the view of auditing as a monopolistic business with auditors hiding behind
the profitable mystique of professional judgment (. . .).’’
Professionalism and commercialism can be viewed as compatible under certain conditions because both logics de-facto
cohabitated for long periods of time (Leicht & Fennell, 2001). Yet, this empirical compatibility does not nullify the claim that
these logics can be viewed as logically inconsistent (at least to some extent) because they address the question of what being
a professional means (a disinterested person of honor motivated by the protection of the public interest or a business
entrepreneur motivated by high billable hours and fees?) and the question of how work should be done (aiming for quality at
all costs or aiming for a ‘‘realization rate’’ of 100%?) in contrasting ways.
We argue that parrhesia (Foucault, 1999) is a language that resonates with the classic logic of professionalism and that
marketing resonates with the commercial logic. Parrhesia is a figure of speech, from Greek pan – everything – and rhema –
that which is said (Foucault, 1999, p. 2). It is generally used to mean giving a complete and exact account of what one has in
mind, and avoiding any kind of circumvolution that might conceal, veil or add a layer of ambiguity on what one thinks9. It
often implies the moral obligation to ‘‘tell everything’’, even at personal risk, because something is at stake that is considered
by the speaker to be of greater importance than his or her own wellbeing10. The word parrhesia appears in the Greek
7
However, Khalifa et al. (2007) also emphasize that it is dangerous to equate talks of change with changes at the level of audit practice. Indeed,
notwithstanding the threat that PCAOB inspections represent for audit firms and their partners and contrary to the speculation that audit firms might not
survive, once stripped of their consulting practice (Burrowes et al., 2004), today, it must be recognized that little has evolved at least in one area – ‘‘the
overall dominance of the large accounting firms remains an immutable truth’’ (Stringfellow, McMeeking, & Maclean, 2014, p. 1).
8
Brint (1994) claims that a new professional ideal-type has risen due to, among other things, the growing importance of engineering sciences in the
second half of the 20th century and the rising prestige of universities like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In this novel view of professionalism,
the possession of specialized skills counts most. The issue of public welfare has no (or very little) meaning. With that said, the traditional professional ethos
has not entirely disappeared today (Neu et al., 2003; Lander et al., 2013). Solemnly swearing to care for the public interest, for example, is a tradition that has
surprisingly survived, perhaps as a poetic and inspiring reference to a glorious past during the rite of passage from student to practitioner.
9
According to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, published 1913 by C. & G. Merriam Co.
10
See Simpson (2012) for an alternative reading of parrhesia.
literature (according to Foucault, 1999, it can be found for the first time in Euripides’ writings), and has been used in a variety
of other contexts, each time with slightly different meanings11.
Depending on how it is used, parrhesia does not necessarily involve the existence of an objective, universal, or undeniable
truth12. As suggested in the following excerpt, it can rather refer to telling everything that one considers right to tell in a specific
situation, in spite of the risks involved.
‘‘So you see, the parrhesiast is someone who takes a risk. Of course, this risk is not always a risk of life. (. . .) If, in a
political debate, an orator risks losing his popularity because his opinions are contrary to the majority’s opinion, or his
opinions may usher in a political scandal, he uses parrhesia’’ (Foucault, 1999, p. 4).
Foucault (1999) notices that the parrhesiast (i.e., whoever speaks the language of parrhesia) is typically depicted in the
Greek literature with a lower position of power vis-à-vis his/her interlocutor, which means that courage, boldness and
assurance are required – the audacity to speak freely regardless of the risks involved (e.g., a daughter addressing her mother
to critique her actions, in Euripides’ Electra, or a messenger addressing his king to deliver bad news, knowing that he might
be punished for that, in Euripides’ The Bacchae). He also finds that, in most cases, specific social qualifications (e.g., a noble
birth or a respectable reputation) and moral qualities (e.g., rectitude) are required. Following Foucault (1999), we argue that
parrhesia does not involve telling what one believes to be true for the sake of truth-telling. What matters to the parrhesiast is
telling what s/he believes needs to be told in order to disrupt a criminal, dishonest or illegitimate situation and trigger
change. Parrhesia is therefore spoken only in specific situations.
We argue that the language of parrhesia can be linked with the classic logic of professionalism for at least three reasons.
First, the functionalist literature on the professions glorifies professionals’ freedom of speech and autonomy. Raelin (1985),
for example, argues that the autonomy of professionals can lead them to violate their clients’ or patients’ desires and resist
their pressures in order to stay true to what their professional knowledge prescribes them to say or do. The audit quality
literature also considers independence as an essential disposition (Knechel, Krishnan, Pevzner, Shefchik, & Velury, 2013)
because it is supposed to allow auditors to maintain a relatively ‘‘unbiased’’ professional judgment.
Second, the doctrine of full disclosure implies that accountants should prepare financial statements that disclose all
information that is material or significant. Full disclosure is precisely what Foucault uses to illustrate parrhesia in the
following excerpt:
[in]‘‘On the Embassy,’’ Demosthenes says: It is necessary to speak with parrhesia, without holding back at
anything without concealing anything. Similarly, in the ‘‘First Philippic,’’ he takes up exactly the same term and
says: I will tell you what I think without concealing anything. The parrhesiast is the person who tells all (Foucault,
2011, p. 9).
Third, although accounting truths are socially constructed, even critical accounting scholars refer – most of the time
ironically – to truth telling as an ideal that accountants and auditors should aim at:
And also whether they are free of material misstatement,
Or whether more disclosure is needed to provide abatement.
It is not enough to simply tell the truth.
(excerpt from a poem by Grayson, 2004, p. 1003).

Another example is Craig and Amernic (2004), who argue that the accounting as truth telling lens is a powerful metaphor.
This metaphor (which the authors critique) is still omnipresent in accountants’ idealized discourse on professionalism. In
practice, of course, auditors are reportedly very confused about what might or might not be ‘‘true’’ (Gendron & Suddaby,
2004). They achieve a reasonable level of comfort about the trustworthiness of their clients’ financial statements only with
great difficulty and fear, as pointed out by Guénin-Paracini, Malsch, and Marché-Paillé (2014). They are also sometimes
accused of being ‘indifferent to the truth’ and only ‘giving the impression that they are trying to present the truth’
(Macintosh, 2009, p. 141). However, even if ‘‘truth telling’’ has little to do with the actual day-to-day activities of accountants
and auditors, we argue it is expected and demanded of accountants and auditors under the classic logic of professionalism’s
frame of meaning13.
11
In the New Testament, the Greek word parrhesia was translated as speaking plainly and used in opposition to speaking in parables. See for example John
16:25, ‘‘(. . .) and hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but I will tell you plainly of the Father’’ (The Bible, Disciples’ Literal
New Testament (DLNT) version, translation based on a Greek text).
12
Foucault’s intention, in his six lectures at Berkeley on the problematization of parrhesia, was not to deal with the problem of qualifying truth itself. What
is truth? What criteria would enable someone to accept a proposition as true? These questions belong to what Foucault refers to as the analytics of truth
(Foucault, 1999, p. 75). He was interested, instead, in documenting the various ways in which the role of truthteller was constructed and problematized in
Greek literature, via an analysis of selected classical texts including Euripides’ tragedies.
13
Parrhesia involves taking risks in the name of some higher interest (typically, public interest). For accountants, communicating a given ‘‘truth" that the
auditee does not want to hear (e.g., your balance sheet liabilities are underestimated by $10 million) is a commercial risk. Taking such commercial risks in
the name of the public good is logically incompatible with commercialism and the language of marketing.
We now turn to explaining what we mean by the language of marketing, which would have been considered heretic just a
few decades ago14 but is now considered a perfectly legitimate language in the accounting professional field. Rhetoric, of
which marketing is an example (Stiegler, 2006) is defined by Foucault (1999, p. 2) in opposition to parrhesia:
‘‘Rhetoric (. . .) provides the speaker with technical devices to help him prevail upon the minds of his audience
(regardless of the rhetorician’s own opinion concerning what he says) (. . .) in parrhesia, the parrhesiast acts on other
people’s mind by showing them, as directly as possible, what he actually believes’’ (Foucault, 1999, p. 2).
Picard et al. (2014) and Picard (2015) argue that, as the commercial logic was progressively juxtaposed to the classic
professional logic, accountants and leaders of accounting professional associations learned to speak the language of
marketing fluently. This diffusion of the marketing language was, in part, imputable to the agency of marketing experts, as
suggested by Kotler and Bloom (1984) and Kotler (2005) – in the late 1960s, some marketing scholars reportedly began to
believe that even non-for profit organizations and professional service organizations15 faced marketing-like problems that
could be fruitfully addressed with marketing language and concepts.
The entrepreneurial role of the Big N firms is also typically associated with the gradual reinforcement of the commercial
logic (Greenwood & Suddaby, 2006; Wyatt, 2004). In fact, Arthur Levitt, former Chief of the Securities and Exchange
Commission, was quite skeptical of auditors’ professionalism before Enron’s debacle. In his book Take on the Street, he notes
the lack of objectiveness on the financial audit due to the reliance on client consulting revenues and the possibility of the
auditor securing a future job with the client (Collins, 2004).
In the United States, Fogarty, Radcliffe, & Campbell (2006), Gendron and Barrett (2004) and Barrett and Gendron (2006)
showed that the AICPA attempted – with varying degrees of success – to develop new markets for accountants’ expertise,
sometimes far beyond accountants’ traditional comfort zone. These include the market for management advisory consulting
services, the market for efficiency auditing, the market for developing ‘‘trust seals’’ for commercial websites’ security
mechanisms (Shafer & Gendron, 2005) and, last but not least, the market for corporate social and environmental auditing
(see also Daly & Schuler, 1998; Fogarty & Radcliffe, 1999; Power, 1997). The marketing language played an important role in
all of the above attempts to expand accountants and auditors’ jurisdictions. Barrett and Gendron (2006), in particular,
explain that marketing was relied upon significantly by WebTrust16 proponents:
‘‘The language of commercialism is significantly reflected in the rhetoric used to promote WebTrust in the eyes of
targeted audiences. Proponents especially sought to persuade the audiences of the relevance of the WebTrust seal
through a logic centered on cost-benefit analysis. Proponents referred to market research in order to establish the
potential of WebTrust for higher revenue’’ (Barrett & Gendron, 2006, p. 645).
In the United Kingdom, Robson, Willmott, Cooper, and Puxty (1994), Radcliffe, Cooper, and Robson (1994) and Hanlon
(1994, 1996) also showed that professional associations discursively participated in the institutionalization of an
increasingly commercial role for their members and sought to expand the scope of the markets for accountants’ labor while
securing the profession’s power of self-regulation, conferred by the state.
In Canada, the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) became increasingly worried, in the 1990s, about
losing the support and commitment of the biggest accounting firms, according to Barrett and Gendron (2006) and this worry
reportedly motivated the institute to endorse the concept of chartered accountants as ‘business advisors’ and approve the
‘multidisciplinary practice’ as a relevant organizational form for accounting firms (Greenwood, Suddaby, & Hinings, 2002).
More recently, Picard et al. (2014) focused on the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Quebec (Canada) and highlighted the
Institute’s active role, over more than forty years, in promoting marketing campaigns aimed at transforming the public’s
perception of accountants from ‘‘meticulous professionals’’ to ‘‘superheroes of the business world.’’ In all of the above
initiatives, increases in marketing language were observed within the accounting field (Picard, 2015).
In sum, the commercial logic and its language, marketing, has coexisted with the classic professional logic and its
language, parrhesia, over the last few decades, in part due to the institutional work of accounting professional associations
and of the Big N firms, without triggering much social contestation until the Enron scandal. In fact, many scholars have
argued that mercantilism and economic interests were never totally absent from the professional ethos, notably in the early
years of the accounting professionalization process (Lee, 1995; Previts & Merino, 1998; Walker, 1995)17. Yet, a consensus
seems to currently be forming that Enron and the subsequent accounting scandals of the early 2000s are a clear signal of an
excessive emphasis on the commercial logic and the marketing language over the last few decades (Sikka, 2009; Zeff,
2003a,b; Wyatt, 2004).
Before examining how this institutional complexity was translated, and used as a discursive impression management
resource by AICPA leaders following the Enron scandal, we first need to define how we intend to use this notion.
14
Before the 1970s according to Picard (2015).
15
New domains started to enter into marketing discourse in the 1960s, including, for example, ‘‘health marketing’’ or ‘‘education marketing’’.
16
WebTrust was a project orchestrated by the AICPA in the late 1990s and was meant to provide third party assurance to on-line consumers that
commercial websites that had the WebTrust seal met ‘‘best practice’’ criteria in terms of on-line transactions security.
17
Some sociologists of the professions have even suggested that the classic professional ideology has always been just a smokescreen for commercial
interests (see for instance Abbott, 1988).
4. Discursive impression management processes
While institutional theories focus on how organizations respond to multiple (and sometimes conflicting) institutional
pressures, they are less useful to explore the mechanisms by which specific individuals, within organizations, participate in
the symbolic management of organizational legitimacy, notably following legitimacy-threatening events. Impression
management theories are better suitable to analyze such processes (Elsbach, 1994). Yet, both frameworks can be ‘‘married’’
for the better (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992).
From an institutional perspective, impression management is typically associated with ‘‘decoupling’’, i.e., appearing to
conform to institutional pressures, while not truly altering organizational practices or structures (Elsbach & Sutton, 1992).
The purpose of this study, however, is not to unveil a decoupling process of some sort, but rather, reflect on institutional
complexity by examining how AICPA leaders’ changing verbal strategies may exhibit the tension between the professional
and commercial logics and translate the Institute’s own combination of these two frames of meaning.
Impression management serves the basic psychological human need to control self-presentation. In an attempt to
enhance the image that others have of them, individual or collective social actors may be tempted to manipulate their
communications to specific audiences. Where organizations are concerned, this behavior has specifically been observed in
times of crisis management (for a review of the most common strategies used by organizational spokespersons during crisis
management episodes, see (Elsbach, 2006). See also (Humphrey et al., 1992), for a detailed account of how the accounting
profession has been involved in managing impressions throughout the twentieth century to address the ‘expectation gap’
issue in the United Kingdom).
The concept of impression management originates in social psychology and many have traced it back to Goffman
(1959). In this seminal book, Goffman suggests that everyday social interactions may be likened to stage drama where each
‘‘actor’’ (i.e. social agent) tries to control the impressions that others form of her/him. The author argues that, in the ‘‘front
stage’’, an actor knows that she/he is being watched; she/he thus performs according to certain institutionalized conventions
and stereotyped expectations. In the ‘‘back stage’’ region, in contrast, the actor can be her/himself and let go of the role played
in front of others. Outside the stage – a region that is distinct from the back and front stages – is where an actor meets certain
members of the audience and offers different performances than that which are played in the front stage. In this research, we
did not have access to AICPA leaders’ back- or off-stage communications but those that are stored in the Institute’s website
are all meant for large readerships and are thus indicative of a front-stage performance of some kind.
Following scandals (rather than accidents, product failures, or other types of crisis events), public apologies indicating the
organization’s concern for the welfare of victims, promising to undertake reparative actions, and publicizing changes in the
organizational structure and procedures to prevent the actions that caused the crisis, are part of the typical mix of responses
by organizations (Elsbach, 2006, p. 65). In the words of Schlenker (1980, p. 154), what is key to impression management
following a scandal is to be able to ‘attach blame to a ‘‘self’’ that no longer exists’. In contrast, self-deception (including denial,
excuses, protesting the organization’s legitimacy ‘‘too much’’), trivialization of the scandal or ‘‘scapegoating’’ another
organization are less likely to be accepted by harmed audiences, according to the author.
Since impression management strategies by organizational spokespersons and leaders are frequent following scandals,
we consider that AICPA leaders likely engaged in impression management processes following Enron – even though the
AICPA was not directly incriminated – to restore the damaged CPA identity of its members, restore the image of integrity of
the entire profession and (re-) create at least the ‘appearance of trust’ (Neu, 1991, p. 296).
5. Research methodologies
The purpose of a case study is to ‘‘obtain an interpretation of what happens more directly, and to be able to gain insights
into all the relevant aspects of the [situation] under study’’ (Hägg & Hedlund, 1979, p. 139) – that is, the evolution (or
stability) of the AICPA leaders’ communication to members and outsiders of the Institute before, during, and after the Enron
crisis management phase. This case study is exclusively based on the qualitative content analysis of archival data (Bryman
and Bell, 2003; Krippendorff, 1980; Weber, 1990). As such, we first manually collected and examined all archived webpages
and press releases issued by the AICPA from April 1, 1997 to December 31, 201018. From those sources, we were able to
retrieve the transcripts of keynote speeches, official addresses, and letters of several past and current Chairmen of the
AICPA’s Board of Directors and Presidents/CEOs. Following Neu et al. (2003, p. 78), we decided to ‘let the periodization ‘‘speak
for itself’’’, which led us to organize the data into three periods; that is, 1997–2001, 2002–2004 and 2005–2010. The
18
The Internet Archive is a non-profit that was founded in 1996 to build an Internet library. Its purposes include offering permanent access for researchers,
historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. In cooperation with Alexa Internet, it
has designed a three-dimensional index that allows browsing of web documents over multiple time periods, and turned this unique feature into an Internet
tool called the ‘‘WAYBACKMACHINE’’. This tool allows the retrieval of archived websites by dates and helps determine when a given site was changed and
redesigned. The date displayed by the web page was deemed to correspond to the date at which the page was updated. More details can be found on https://
archive.org/about/ and https://archive.org/web/. We selected the beginning of our time period for our investigation in 1997 because the availability of
archived data was optimal and consistent from that date onwards but also because it represented a significant year for the AICPA and the accounting
profession. For example, large and visible marketing initiatives such as the Image Enhancement Campaign were launched that year. Similarly, 2010 was the
latest year for which we were able to retrieve and obtain optimal and consistent data. A list of source documents collected and used is listed in the Appendix.
identification of these three distinct time periods in AICPA leaders’ communication was reinforced by the language and tone
analysis that we conducted using DICTION, a computerized and dictionary-based content analysis software application. The
results of this quantitative analysis are available upon request. We then organized the data and removed all duplicate items
manually, using a coding piece of software (NVivo).
Further, a coding scheme was carefully developed through ongoing comparison between the various transcripts, based on
‘‘in vivo’’ categories and categories emanating from relevant literature. Ultimately, we relied on this coding scheme to
develop the paper’s storyline that is focused on how AICPA leaders use both the language of marketing and that of parrhesia
and which contributes to a broader conversation about the institutional complexity of the accounting field.
6. Case study
A professional organization exists to represent the interests of its members, to be the ‘‘face’’ of the membership to the
public. The AICPA historically has attempted to remain relevant by portraying and redefining the accounting profession as
something other than the ‘‘bean counter’’ auditor mentality – CPAs do not only provide assurance on past events (i.e. the
financial statements), they are also business advisors and specialists. This dates back to the late 1950s with first investigation
by the AICPA of the possibility of introducing official accreditation of CPAs in specialized areas with the study from the
Committee on Long-Range Objectives (Chiasson, Gaharan, & Mauldin, 2006). The counterargument against specialties for
CPAs was that it ‘‘was understood that CPAs had special abilities in accounting matters, particularly in auditing. Thus, claims
of specialties were thought to be unnecessary, misleading, and divisive’’ (Chiasson et al., 2006). This narrower view of the
CPA’s role did not dissuade the AICPA from branching out into other ‘‘related’’ disciplines by issuing specialties starting with
the Accredited Personal Financial Specialist in 1985 (now known as the Personal Financial Specialist). In the 1990s, the
international public accounting firms were dominating the accounting landscape by offering a myriad of value-added
services to their audit clients. The AICPA attempted to ‘‘join the party’’ by developing a variety of initiatives and marketing
campaigns focusing on CPAs providing more than attestation services as evidenced by the creation of two new CPA
specialties – the Accredited Business Valuation in 1996 and the Certified Information Technology Professional in 2000. Most
recently, the AICPA has branched out to the Management Accounting domain by working with the Charted Institute of
Management Accountants to create the Global Management Accounting Principles to ‘‘establish global consistency of the
management accounting function’’ (AICPA, 2014).
In the following section, we focus on the time period immediately preceding the Enron scandal and examine how the face
of the profession, the AICPA, communicated its growth aspirations to the membership.
6.1. 1997–2001 – Rebranding and expansion: the reign of marketing language
Messages from the AICPA to its members during the pre-Enron period (1997–2001) can be classified into the following
two broad themes: (1) rebranding CPAs’ image and (2) broadening the scope of services offered by CPAs, with sub-themes
that appeared throughout our analysis. It is important to note that some of the excerpts cited in this section, although dated
2011, concern initiatives undertaken in 1998 and hence constitute a primary source for the 1997–2001 analysis period.
6.1.1. Rebranding CPAs’ image and bolstering accountants’ pride

On January 30, 1997, the AICPA issued a press release announcing a new multi-million dollar advertising image program
that represented the second phase of the organization’s five-year Image Enhancement Campaign19. The objective was well
defined, to ‘‘help reposition the CPA’’ (Kessler, 1997) and highlight ‘‘the changing role of CPAs as they enter the next
millennium with cutting-edge services that reach far beyond the traditional tax and auditing and accounting tasks that the
public has typically associated with them’’ (AICPA, 1997, emphasis added). The campaign clearly attempted to drastically
change the traditional dry image of the accountant and accounting profession by ‘‘trying to get the public to think outside the
stereotype’’ (see Jeacle, 2008) as suggested by Geoffrey L. Pickard, Vice-President of Communications for the AICPA at that
time (as quoted in AICPA, 1997).
The Campaign has yielded measurable results in terms of changing the public perception of the CPA. However, there is
more to accomplish. Many of you know my thinking about the only effective real way to change the public’s perception
of the CPA [. . .]. I envision a group of innovative CPAs who produce solutions to far-ranging problems through
technology, out-of-the box solutions and good humor. I believe this is the only way that the average person will change
his or her long-ingrained perception of the CPA. This [. . .] will provide a more accurate image of the CPA – one that we have
been striving for without a great deal of success (Kessler, 1997, emphases added).
19
‘‘The [AICPA] Image Enhancement Campaign to date is comprised of a series of two television commercials, eleven print advertisements and eight radio
spots. All of the ads aim to ‘‘brand" the CPA designation in line with the burgeoning new role. That is, they work to create awareness and enhance the
credibility of CPAs as critical advisors to key members of management or as members of senior management themselves. The ads also seek to position the
CPA as the premier financial planner among consumers’’ (Melancon, 1998).
Given the campaign’s focus on value and business opportunities, Stuart Kessler, Chairman of the AICPA’s board of
directors, consistently built on these ideas in his 1997 inaugural address titled ‘‘The CPA – A New Meaning for a New
Beginning.’’ He ensured that during his term as Chairman, the campaign would ‘‘continue to focus on the broad services
delivered by the CPA’’ and that the campaign’s slogan20 would ‘‘take on ever-more-meaningful dimensions as [they] expand
the nature and value the CPA brings to the competitive table.’’ This was closely aligned with some of the elements identified
in the CPA Vision Project21:
The CPA profession is in a highly unique position to seize the opportunities that diversity presents. This robust profession
permeates a 360-degree view of a diverse business and finance environment. CPAs from all backgrounds, perspectives,
segments of the profession, and from all states and 3 jurisdictions of the nation achieved consensus through the Visioning
process. We must all continue to generate ideas, gain feedback, stimulate creativity in ourselves and encourage it in others,
share our successes, and strengthen and refine ways to fulfill our vision of the future (AICPA, 2011, their emphases)22.
Kessler’s speech puts a particular emphasis on the concept of novelty and ‘‘newness’’ for the profession – the ‘‘New
Finance’’, as well as on the individual professional – the ‘‘New CPA, who is not a ‘‘numbers cruncher’’; not a ‘‘recorder of
historical information’’ either nor a ‘‘traditional auditor and attestor of financial statements’’ (Kessler, 1997). Instead, the
New CPA is adaptable, resourceful and multipurpose.
For CPAs in business and industry, we’re on the doorstep of a major service opportunity – ‘‘The New Finance,’’ a term
being used to describe the revolutionary changes that have taken place in financial management in the last decade and
the expanded roles of CPAs in business and industry. CPAs in corporate America are being called upon to provide a high
level of strategic financial analysis and decision support. These new demands offer the CPA challenging and extremely
rewarding opportunities. [. . .] The CPA of The New Finance is well-rounded and versatile, and an effective manager and
strategist — a CPA who creates value instead of measuring value (Kessler, 1997, his emphasis).
This rebranding strategy was later supported by speeches of AICPA’s President, Barry Melancon:
More a corporate employee who is a decision-maker than mere information provider, more external advisor23 than
technician, the new CPA is an active participant in or advisor to most business transactions, delivering value-added
solutions or alternatives (Melancon, 1998, emphases added).
The terms ‘‘New Finance’’ and ‘‘New CPA’’ communicated a redefined meaning for CPAs’ work and value, allowing them to go
above and beyond what they were traditionally educated and trained to perform. Such statements can thus possibly lead to the
image of perfectly well-rounded business (rather than accounting) professionals equipped with all the necessary tools and
skills to solve any problem or provide value-creating services. One of the AICPA Image Enhancement Campaign advertisements
went as far as playfully suggesting that the CPA incarnated a needed magician who would come and save the world:
You don’t need a crystal ball to see the future of your business. You just need a CPA. With their insight, knowledge and
foresight, CPAs can help you achieve top performance in a rapidly changing business environment. They see the
openings others overlook. They see the ones to avoid. So you can clearly see what’s ahead for your business. The CPA.
Never underestimate the valueSM (AICPA, 2000b, emphases added).
One of the key elements emphasized by the AICPA leadership was a sentiment of accomplishment, pride, and belonging.
Kessler reminded members of the significance of the three letters C.P.A. and even suggested a broader meaning for this
acronym – ‘‘Certified Professional Advisor’’.
This effort to alter CPA’s image has to be understood in the context of the late 1990s, when AICPA leaders had the
perception that the market for traditional public accounting services was saturated and that growth prospects for
CPA firms were limited (Elliott, 1997). It was also a period during which the association engaged in numerous
jurisdictional expansion attempts, including the Global Credential Initiative, which grew out of the CPA vision project24
20
The campaign’s slogan was ‘‘The CPA. Never Underestimate the Value.’’ Its advertising tagline was: ‘‘You see numbers. We see opportunities.’’
21
In the late 1990s the AICPA and the state societies cooperated in bringing together CPAs from across the country to develop an unprecedented grassroots
vision for the profession for the 21st century and beyond. The CPA Vision Project created a comprehensive and integrated vision of the profession’s future
designed to build awareness of future opportunities and challenges for all segments of the profession; lead the profession as it navigates the changing
demands of the marketplace; draw together the profession to create a vibrant and viable future; leverage the CPA’s core competencies and values; and guide
current and future initiatives in support of the profession and the protection of the public interest (http://www.aicpa.org). See Fogarty et al. (2006) for a
detailed examination and discussion of the implications of the CPA Vision Project.
22
This reference, although dated 2011, comes from the final report of the CPA Vision Project entitled ‘‘The CPA Vision Project: 2011 and Beyond,’’ which is
presented as follows on the AICPA’s website: ‘‘In 1998, the AICPA embarked on the first visionary project called The CPA Visions Project. The visions project
set a 12-year horizon and focused on the major forces affecting the CPA profession. This report provides an overview of the initiative and its key take-
always.’’ The report includes all the initiatives undertaken back in 1998 and hence constitutes, for the scope and purpose of our study, a primary source for
the 1997–2001 analysis period.
23
While spelled ‘‘adviser’’ in this original quote (as well as in some other original quotes) we transformed the spelling to ‘‘advisor’’ throughout the rest of
the paper for internal consistency.
24
‘‘The credential was envisioned as a cooperative venture among existing professions to share what was viewed as an unoccupied competitive space’’
(Shafer and Gendron, 2005, p. 464). Shafer and Gendron’s (2005) analysis however revealed much resistance by members of the AICPA to the rhetoric used
by the association’s leaders to promote the new credential initiative.
(Shafer & Gendron, 2005), and the CPA Eldercare project (Elliott, 1997), which targeted a suite of accounting, tax and
consulting services to older adults25.
This rhetoric of ‘‘prosperous future’’ and ‘‘new meaning for a new beginning’’ for the profession clearly departs from the
traditional framing of professionals’ discourse – molded, at least in North America, by Protestant work ethic and predicated
on claimed superior moral character, a disdain for materialistic endeavors, a life of hard work and service to others, and a
‘‘calling’’ to protect the interests of the public (Neu et al., 2003). Even after its secularization and re-articulation around the
notions of independence, competence, objectivity, and integrity after the Second World War, the discourse of professional
associations’ leaders remained, up until relatively recently, reportedly still indicative of the classic logic of excellence, honor,
and detachment (op. cit). In contrast, the discourse that we analyzed above bears hardly any trace of the metaphors, catch
phrases, visual images, or depictions used in the classic professional discourse. The language used by AICPA leaders to
address both external and internal audiences no longer indicates an ‘inversion of the economic world, with material rewards
simply being an incidental consequence of self-sacrificing commitment to a demanding career’ (Neu et al., 2003, p. 95). In
fact, no attempt is made to discursively reconcile the ‘‘new CPA’’ with the old professional identity. The classic professional
logic’s discourse is (temporarily) dismissed, as further emphasized in the following section.
6.1.2. Scope of services offered by CPAs

The second broad theme emanating from our analysis was the creation and development of new professional services
provided by CPAs. Such desire to turn to other markets outside traditional accounting and auditing services possibly can be
justified by, or at least partially associated with, the apparent concern that CPAs ‘‘are not involved in the decision-making
aspects of business’’ and ‘‘do not understand global economic issues’’ (AICPA, 2011). Such concerns could have therefore
potentially provided an avenue to justify the need to explore the market for professional services and expand their
knowledge and skills beyond accounting:
The marketplace demands that CPAs be conversant in global business practices and strategies. [. . .] A broader focus
beyond ‘‘numbers’’ to ‘‘strategic thinking’’ will lead to increased opportunities, professional respect, and increased
rewards. [. . .] CPAs must become market driven and not dependent upon regulations to keep them in business (AICPA,
2011, emphases added).
This, in part, led to a quest for a significantly wider and broader scope of their work, not only for their existing client base
but also for new potential clients in the marketplace:
We must locate and dominate new markets to brand as CPA services; so, we must develop new accreditations as soon as
possible. The trick is to get to the market before others take them over. We missed the boat with personal financial
planning and business valuation. To use one of Bob Elliott’s favorite phrases ‘‘we let others eat our lunch.’’ We were late
to market and are still playing catch-up. We don’t want to make that mistake again (Kessler, 1997, emphases added).
From time to time, the AICPA also issued press releases showcasing stories of former employees or directors who had
moved on to open their own practice to provide newer types of services, highlighting their success and setting them as
examples to follow:
Phyllis Bernstein, who [. . .] served as Director – Personal Financial Planning for the American Institute of Certified
Public Accountants, has decided to leave the AICPA to create her own financial planning consulting practice [. . .].
Bernstein will serve as a consultant to CPA firms to help them integrate financial planning and investment advisory
services into their practices. She will also assist financial services firms in structuring alliances with CPAs (AICPA, 2001,
emphases added).
Others announced different types of strategic alliances between the AICPA and major institutions to increase their scope
of services and thus market share:
The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and Fidelity Investments Institutional Brokerage Group (IBG)
today announced an alliance through which Fidelity will be the sole provider of clearing and custody services for the
AICPA’s Center for Investment Advisory Services. The alliance is a key component of a comprehensive program
developed by the AICPA to help its members expand their planning practices by becoming registered investment
advisors and serving clients in that capacity (AICPA, 2000a, emphases added).
From 1997 to 2001, AICPA leaders are actively and passionately involved in the game of selling business-related services
to corporate clients. Accounting is to be renamed ‘New Finance’; CPAs are to be renamed ‘New CPAs’ or ‘Certified Professional
Advisors’; ‘attestors of financial statements’ is to be abandoned; ‘key decision makers who contribute to the bottom line’
should be preferred. This semantic change is not devoid of consequences – it reflects an appropriation by AICPA leaders of the
values of the most successful players in the field of business-related services, including, at that time, management
consultants, the Big N public accounting firms, and large corporate clients of business-related services. Our analysis reveals
25
In an aging America, the AICPA suggested that the ElderCare niche would provide business opportunities for small CPA practitioners (http://www.
nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2005/505/essentials/p60.htm).
no contradiction between the communications targeted at CPAs (AICPA leaders’ speeches) and the communications targeted
at clients or lay citizens in general (AICPA’s press releases).
Marketing is used in both types of ‘‘front stage representations’’ to convince clients and CPAs alike that accountants are
adaptable, multi-competent, and valuable regardless of the type of managerial decision making context considered. We
interpret this rhetoric as a sign that the institutional complexity of the accounting field is temporarily resolved, during this
pre-Enron age, by emphasizing the commercial logic and relegating the classic professional logic to the back room. This
resolution is consistent with the predictions of Reay and Hinings (2009) and DiMaggio (1983); that is, when different logics
compete, one usually ends up dominating the other and the field rearranges itself around the winning one. Yet, this fragile
resolution will not hold very long after the Enron scandal.
6.2. 2002–2004 – The immediate post-Enron period
The Enron scandal at the end of 2001 and the subsequent downfall of the accounting profession constituted the pivotal
moment at which the AICPA’s focus and chosen themes began to look quite different from the ones exhibited in the prior
period. This initiated what Smith (2005) refers to as the ‘‘crisis of legitimation’’ phase where a traumatic event attracts
external media coverage, public outcry, and governmental attention. A failure to quickly re-secure legitimacy with
stakeholders can lead to a ‘‘snowball’’ effect resulting in potentially long-term or even permanent reputational damage and
can even place an organization’s existence in jeopardy (Helio, 2006).
Crisis and leadership are closely intertwined phenomena where people look to leaders in times of distress to ‘‘do
something’’. When normality returns, people offer praise and accolades; whereas, when the crisis continues to intensify as it
did with the news of additional financial reporting frauds such as WorldCom and Tyco, leaders are vilified (Boin & Hart,
2003). The general public, regulators, and members of the accounting profession all looked to AICPA leadership for a
response. As previously discussed, AICPA leaders had, just before the scandal, expended considerable efforts to rebrand CPAs,
change their scope of services, and diffuse a new image of the profession, both internally and externally.
However, the Enron blow forced the AICPA to switch gears once again as illustrated by the following 2003 statement from
the then Chairman of the then Institute’s Board of Directors, Scott Voynich:
For most professions and sectors of society, things are changing dramatically. Some worry whether they are changing
for the better or the worse. But one thing is clear: as long as things are changing, there is hope for a better future.
Because when things stop changing, that is when we know we are not progressing. Constant improvement depends on
constant change. [. . .] We’re happy to address change. [. . .] We, as leaders of the profession, the AICPA, have had to
rethink how we can best serve our members and drive positive, reasoned change (Voynich, 2003a, emphases added).
This need for change translated into different dimensions that recurrently came back in communications issued by the
AICPA leadership. The most significant dimensions were (1) a fervent desire to restore the old, pre-rebranding image of the
accounting profession and (2) a strong semantic emphasis on themes previously largely absent from pre-Enron
communications – namely, integrity, ethics and professional unity.
6.2.1. Restoration
In the early part of his remarks at the 2002 AICPA National Conference on Current Securities and Exchange Commission
Development, AICPA Board of Directors’ Chairman William F. Ezzell took the profession to task and depicted the current state
and reputation of the profession with dismay, almost portraying a fatalist position:
Make no mistake about it: our profession was part of the problem. Some accountants and auditors were directly
implicated in misdeeds and mismanagement. [. . .] Our profession was put under the microscope, and our practices and
policies subjected to intense scrutiny and criticism. An article last week in The Economist magazine said that over the
past year, as a result of the corporate scandals, accountants had become ‘‘less trusted even than politicians and
journalists.’’ Talk about a low blow. That depressing assessment really sums up just how painful and difficult a year this
has been for our profession (Ezzell, 2002b, emphases added).
However, in line with the announcement from the AICPA that ‘‘[it had] developed a new print ad and a 30-second radio
spot designed to help restore confidence in the CPA profession in light of recent events’’26. (AICPA, 2002a), Ezzell (2002a)
urged restoration of the accounting profession on three fronts – belief, reputation, and sense of shared purpose. Moreover,
Melancon instilled the notions of ‘‘rejuvenating’’ the profession’s culture (AICPA, 2002b), ‘‘reach[ing] back’’ to core roots,
‘‘reassert[ing]’’ the heritage, ‘‘rebuilding’’ confidence in financial markets and trust in the profession, and ‘‘shap[ing] an
accounting culture for the future that surpasses the legacy of our past (Melancon, 2002).
Some motivational facets of restoration revolved around encouraging CPAs to look upon themselves and take the reins in
this quest to restore the reputation of the profession:
26
The AICPA also informed its members that it had ‘‘postponed running [their] normal image ads for the rest of the year and instead [would] use those
resources to run these new ads’’ (AICPA, 2002a).
No legislation, no regulation can win back that reputation. There is no silver bullet. We are the ones, the only ones, who
can do it. [. . .] We, as a profession – have a choice. We can stay stuck in place, feeling bad about what has happened; or,
we can take the long view and drive the process of restoration. To do that, we must first be truly in touch with who we
are and what we stand for (Ezzell, 2002a, emphases added).
Despite opposing the bill while it was being considered in Congress, the Institute’s leadership ended up highlighting how
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 constituted an important landmark of the restoration journey for the accounting profession,
particularly in regaining and rebuilding investor confidence:
The continued health of the financial markets and the need to regain the trust and confidence of the individual investor
led Congress this year to pass the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, a sweeping new law that includes fundamental reforms for the
business world. [. . .] We strongly support the goals of the [. . .] bill. We want to do everything in our power to make sure
the abuses that emerged over the past year never happen again. We hold ourselves to the highest possible standards,
and we expect others to do the same. The final bill contains many provisions we supported and helped develop. We
offered ideas for reform that became key elements of the new law (Ezzell, 2002b, emphases added).
This discursive shift, from promoting a new image for CPAs in 1997–2001, to re-establishing the profession’s attachment
to its origins in 2002–2004, is particularly remarkable where the semantics of morality is concerned—the claim that
accountants are individuals of superior moral character was absent from communications of the previous time period; it has
now fervently resurfaced.
6.2.2. Emphasis on integrity, ethics, unity and parrhesia

During this period, S. Scott Voynich, the Chairman of the AICPA Board of Directors, placed a strong focus on the vital role of
integrity in the rejuvenation process (AICPA, 2002b) and the sustainability of the accounting profession. He returned to the
honored notions of ‘‘sense of shared purpose’’ and ‘‘diversity’’ and associated them with ‘‘integrity’’ (Voynich, 2003b). He also
attempted to provide a visual definition as well as a strong call to mobilize the membership with references to ‘‘unity’’ and
ethics’’:
Integrity is not something you carry in your briefcase. It isn’t something you carry with you when you walk through the
office door, or put on for a meeting with a client. Integrity is a way of living, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is what
allows you to sleep at night. (. . .) Now more than ever, CPAs must live by the spirit as well as the meaning of integrity. We
must embrace the fact that CPA stands as much for a way of living as for a professional endeavor and we cannot
separate the two. There is only one answer–and it is what I will be thinking about all year long: integrity (. . .) Integrity
also includes unity. We work collaboratively with affected parties to create something that leaves the world better off
than when we started. And when there are differences–as there almost always are in any human endeavor that
involves more than one person–we come together to resolve them in the public interest and forge a united front. [. . .]
We are expected to live by a code of ethics. It must serve as the North Star for all of our activities (Voynich, 2003b,
emphases added).
The Institute’s leadership sent a clear message that ‘‘teaching ethics and hard choices’’ was essential to the training of new
staff, as well as celebrating those ‘‘who say ‘‘NO’’ in the face of overwhelming pressures’’ (Ezzell, 2002a).
The rhetoric of what distinguishes a profession from a trade the ethics of responsibility vis-à-vis the protection of the
public–also characterizes leaders’ communications; they emphasize their ‘‘unwavering commitment’’ to the profession’s
deontology. In addition, a strong desire to ‘‘create a unified profession’’ (Voynich, 2003a) by increasing cohesion among peers
is exhibited:
Wherever we stand on other issues, we stand as one in informing, enlightening and clearing up misconceptions about
who we are. We stand as one in our commitment to our core values. And no matter where we stand on other issues, we
stand as one in believing each day, every day, that we are a profession. A profession of which we remain fiercely proud.
[. . .] Now more than ever we need to present a unified front. Unity, a sense of shared purpose, will be the engine that drives
our efforts to restore public confidence in the CPA profession (Ezzell, 2002a, emphases added and his emphases).
The above speech resonates with what Neu et al. (2003) observed in Canada during the 1970s, a time period characterized
by an increasing societal malaise surrounding the ethics of accountants. The authors highlight that the Canadian Chartered
Accountant profession became obsessed with public perception and reacted to this malaise via publicizing an image of
accountants as possessing high ethical standards, untouched by the general moral decay and ‘nihilism’ of their times. Leaders
of professional associations, regardless of the country considered, thus seem to be veterans in the exercise of speaking the
language of ‘‘ethics’’ in times of public suspicion. Our analysis implies that the AICPA’s leadership was familiar with the
challenge of marketing an image of ‘‘unity’’ and shared ethical values, despite their associations’ growing membership size
and diversity.
Finally, a press release issued by the AICPA in early 2003 quoted Melancon reminding members that ‘‘all members of the
profession engaged in auditing are required to maintain independence from audit clients in accordance with detailed and
regularly updated independence rules, interpretations and ethics rulings’’ (AICPA, 2003). This was preceded by an invitation
to remember the core principles and values of the Institute’s code of conduct:
[. . .] we need to rededicate ourselves to the bedrock principles and core values upon which the AICPA was founded
more than a century ago. These principles are spelled out in our own code of conduct. When you join the AICPA, you
accept ‘‘an obligation of self-discipline above and beyond the requirements of laws and regulations’’ and promise an
‘‘unswerving commitment to honorable behavior, even at the sacrifice of personal advantage’’ (AICPA, 2002a, emphasis
added).
These narratives are associated with the notion of parrhesia because morality, courage and risk taking are involved – the
accountant, it is argued, needs to privilege honesty and needs to be able to dare fully disclosing information that s/he believes
is material and significant, despite the negative impact that this disclosure is likely to have on his or her relationship with the
client, and despite the unbalanced power relation between the accountant (or auditor) and the manager/client. Learning
‘‘hard choices’’ and learning to say ‘‘NO’’ when confronted with significant pressures (Ezzell, 2002a) is presented as a
necessity.
In sum, the years immediately following the Enron scandal reflected the AICPA leaders’ emphasis on the importance of the
profession’s ‘core values’, including speaking frankly even at the risk of ‘sacrificing’ personal gain, relying on one’s moral
compass, preserving ‘independence from audit clients’, or looking for ‘objectivity’ and ‘honesty’ in the rendering of
professional judgments. This glossary of moral exemplarity, coupled with the notion of ‘unity’ and cohesion among members
and verity belongs to the lexical field typically associated with the classic professional logic.
In this time of crisis management, communications and speeches from AICPA leaders are ‘‘purified’’ from any
unscrupulous marketing or commercial explicit intention – playing the game of selling business (rather than just
accounting) services no longer seems a worthy investment. AICPA leaders stop borrowing the vocabulary and ways of
expressing themselves of those who are publically admonished in this time of turbulence (Arthur Andersen and, by
extension, all large public accounting and consulting firms), even if there is a price to pay in introducing discontinuity in their
communication. The impression management literature indicates that leaders who change their minds often tend to be seen
as deceitful or weak-minded (Cialdini, 1984). The Christian rhetoric of moral virtue and financial disinterestedness, inherited
by CPAs from older and nobler professions, however dull it might have first appeared in the 1997–2001 years, has become
realigned with the new structures of the field shortly after Enron.
Exit marketing – the language of the commercial institutional logic – and welcome parrhesia, the language of whistle
blowing and classic professionalism.
6.3. 2005–2010 – The irresistible attraction of marketing: the language of consumerist societies
The image restoration and enhancement efforts by the AICPA seemed to have eventually paid off, at least in the minds of
AICPA leadership as evidenced by a press release issued in 2005 that exhibited increased confidence for the future:
New independent research shows the CPA profession continues to garner high marks from business decision makers,
executives and investors, earning favorable ratings of 97%, 95% and 89%, respectively. In fact, business decision makers
and executives ranked CPAs higher than physicians by several percentage points. CPAs also ranked higher than other
financial services-related professions, such as insurance agents, bankers, chief management consultants and stock
research analysts [. . .]. The data show CPA attributes ratings in the areas of ‘‘committed to the rules of the accounting
profession,’’ ‘‘reliable’’ and ‘‘consistently demonstrates integrity and ethics’’ have moved higher (AICPA, 2005a,
emphases added).
However, shortly after the reconstruction attempt across the dimensions discussed above, the AICPA began exhibiting
some ambiguity in its communications during this latest period (2005–2010). Although in a more hybridized and less direct
way, this suggested the coexistence of contrasting values and in some cases, a return to the marketing language used prior to
Enron. It should also be noted that such language resurfaced in a subtle way – it appeared somewhat hidden and diluted
within the overall integration and restoration-seeking messages found in the previous period. The most recurrent sub-
themes that we identified in this new period, juxtaposed to the previous emphasis on restoration, integrity, unity, and work
ethics, were (1) the creation and (re)development of other new business opportunities for professional service providers;
and (2) the need to acquire first-class sales and marketing skills to facilitate the sale of those additional services and to
sustain or increase the profits of CPA firms.
6.4. Business opportunities for (new) services offered by CPAs
The notion of the ‘‘know-it-all’’ CPA being able to understand and analyze all types of information began to resurface in
2005, most notably through a white paper issued by the AICPA that included a visible attempt at securing the future careers
of CPAs by making the case why CPAs are uniquely qualified to be Chief Financial Officers (CFOs). A press release quoted Barry
Melancon:
There [was] a dual role for today’s CFO’’ and that ‘‘in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley world, for public and private companies
alike, there is a heightened emphasis on financial reporting and internal control. At the same time, the CFO continues
to be more involved in developing and executing business strategy in ways that create value for the company (AICPA,
2005b).
The white paper describes how seasoned CPAs have a unique combination of education, training, and experience to meet this
dual role. The document further underscores the point that CPAs are the acknowledged experts in accounting, financial
reporting, and internal controls and are bound by the highest standards of integrity and ethical conduct (AICPA, 2005b,
emphases added).
These ideas were more officially formulated by Leslie Murphy, the 2005–2006 Chairwoman of the AICPA’s Board of
Directors, during her inaugural speech at the AICPA’s 2005 Fall meeting and, to a lesser extent, as part of her remarks
at the 2005 AICPA SEC-PCAOB Current Developments Conference. In the latter she brought up the issue of staff
recruitment and retention, but still called for ‘‘simultaneously work[ing] to support the public interest, bolster[ing]
the professional knowledge of CPAs [. . .], and ‘‘seek[ing] new ways to expand our relevance and contributions to
Americans everywhere’’ (Murphy, 2005a, emphases added). In the former, this ‘‘bilingualism’’ was more pronounced
and explicit. While her speech was centered on collaboration with regulators and other bodies (consistent with the
theme during the immediate post-Enron period), the rhetoric toward the quest for business opportunities was born
again:
It is challenging to regulate. And it is challenging to adapt to regulation. The AICPA and all of us here today stand at the
nexus of those two challenges. There are new issues, new challenges. Together, we can master them. Together, we can
take the challenges and convert them into opportunities. And together, we can ensure that our efforts add up to a clear
pattern of light, offering guidance and illumination (Murphy, 2005b, emphases added).
We identified four sub-themes that emerged from this resurfacing process. The first was the return of the CPA as a
business advisor. While insisting on the important role of CPAs to provide ‘‘leadership in working collaboratively
with the regulators to fulfill our collective commitment to protecting the public interest’’, Murphy also noted that
clients with questions on how best to optimize their business and expansion plans should turn to ‘‘us, their CPAs and
trusted business advisors’’ (Murphy, 2005b, emphases added). Similarly, Robert Harris, 2009–2010 Chairman of the
AICPA’s Board of Directors, focused on the key role of ‘‘business advisors’’ that are required to know ‘‘where we [they]
were and where our [their] client are, at all times’’ and the need to ‘‘live up to our [that] role’’ (Harris, 2009a,
emphases added).
Second, whereas he remembered the difficult time endured by the profession, Barry Melancon placed a
particular emphasis on a client market that he implicitly described as underexplored, private small business
companies. There was a sense of creating the need for CPAs to serve these types of clients. Third, Murphy mixed the
importance of ‘‘shaping and pursuing an ethical code that promotes our [the] profession’s core values and our [the]
public interest responsibilities and ‘‘providing [. . .] leadership in working collaboratively with the regulators to fulfill
our collective commitment to protecting the public interest’’ with the encouragement of developing Enhanced
Business Reporting (EBR)27 as a new service because CPAs ‘‘have to ensure that investors can access a
comprehensive perspective on the quality, sustainability, and variability of companies’ cash flows and earnings’’
(Murphy, 2005b, emphases added).
Last but not least, the fourth sub-theme emanating subsequent to the 2008 global financial crisis28 is the growing need
and strong desire for business opportunities by creating new services but also by actually capitalizing on the crisis itself:
With the market meltdown, Dow Jones Newswires reports that people are turning to accountants for help that goes
well beyond advice and preparation, including budgeting for college and retirement savings. ‘‘The opportunities are
enormous,’’ says Michael E. Goodman, a member of the AICPA’s personal financial planning executive committee. He
also is a financial advisor (AICPA, 2009, emphases added).
At this point, the AICPA exhibited a clear and strong focus on the necessity and opportunities to generate additional
revenue from different types of services, some of them being brand new (e.g., ‘‘financial planning services’’, AICPA, 2009, or
‘‘accounting for sustainability issues’’, Harris, 2009b). Some optimism could also be felt in the communications of both its
leadership and membership:
As we saw with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, public policy changes can create business development opportunities for CPA
firms. The current recession is deep, and the changes coming from Washington are staggering in their scope. The
stimulus bill, the budget, and other changes that may soon be coming will fundamentally restructure the U.S.
economy. [. . .]. The firms that will grow in this new environment are the ones that take the calculated risk out of their
comfort zone and–in the cases where it makes sense–putting their resources to grow new lines of business (Ramos,
2009, emphases added).
27
In addition to EBR, another initiative called ‘‘XBRL’’ was on the AICPA’s agenda as illustrated by Melancon’s testimony to Congress in March 2006 on the
need for a new financial reporting model by linking EBR with XBRL. Arleen Thomas, then Senior Vice President – Member Competency and Development,
also stated that ‘‘historically based information doesn’t fully serve investors’ needs in today’s economy. Enhanced Business Reporting and XBRL are the
instruments through which investors can obtain quality information faster’’ (as quoted in AICPA, 2006a).
28
The impact of the crisis was significant. As Ramos (2009) posits, ‘‘there is no question that CPA firms have suffered alongside their clients [. . .]. Firms
have lost consulting and special projects that fell victim to their clients’ cost-cutting measures.’’
Further, Harris introduced a relatively unexpected new line of service and encouraged CPAs to explore the
‘‘opportunities’’ to integrate sustainability, corporate social responsibility (CSR), and/or environmental stewardship
issues29, as if CPAs became suddenly interested in these issues and were fully qualified to undertake such tasks (Malsch,
2013).
As a person who is concerned about his environment, I urge our profession to take the lead in integrating sustainability
into financial reporting and embedding it into our day-to-day decision-making. This whole concept presents
tremendous opportunity for our profession. Currently, there are no official rules on how an organization should report
on sustainability. So here is my challenge to all of us. To my fellow CPAs in public practice, let’s take the lead in
developing guidance on how sustainability can be incorporated into today’s business planning, and how this can
increase a company’s value. If you work in business and industry, now is the time to make sustainability a key pillar in
your business planning [. . .] Let me underscore here, the push to sustainability is not about government regulation or
new laws. This trend is market-driven. Sustainability is about bottom-line business operations that are impacting the
supply chain [. . .]. I want the CPA to continue to be the trusted advisor and become a visible leader in sustainability
(Harris, 2009a, emphases added).
In addition, the AICPA has recently attempted to secure a foothold in the market for credentialing information
technology/systems expertise through the Certified Information Technology Professional (CITP) Credential that the
Information Systems Audit and Control Association (ISACA) historically had dominated with the Certified Information
Systems Auditor (CISA) certification. The AICPA has positioned the CITP to further extend the CPA’s domain into information
technology and systems:
A Certified Information Technology Professional (CITP) is a Certified Public Accountant recognized for his or her unique
ability to provide business insight by leveraging knowledge of information relationships and supporting technologies.
The CITP credential focuses on information assurance and management services, making a CPA among the most
trusted business advisor. (. . .) Distinguish yourself from other Information Assurance and Management professionals.
Only CPAs can be CITPs, allowing CITPs to capitalize on profession’s trusted reputation and helping them to
differentiate themselves from other professionals in the marketplace (AICPA, 2012a).
The Institute created the CITP in 2000 but, as of 2005, only 697 CPAs had been granted the CITP designation (Chiasson
et al., 2006). In an attempt to extend and legitimize the CPA influence into technology, the Institute required passage of an
examination, since July 2012, in order to earn the CITP Credential – similar to the exam required for the CISA.
6.4.1. Marketing, sales and customer service (‘‘America Counts on CPAs’’)

The other theme that emerged during the 2005–2010 period is the AICPA’s need to empower itself with top-of-the-line
marketing tools and skills as a means to expand its market of service scope. In late 2004, the AICPA had already made
available the ‘‘CPA Marketing Tool Kit’’ through which members could obtain the CPA logo with the newly approved tagline
‘‘America Counts on CPAs’’ (AICPA, 2004). The tool kit seems to include a large amount of materials to enhance the
advertisements of CPA firms as described below:
[. . .] the Tool Kit contains five print advertisements for CPA firms to run in their local publications. Three of the ads focus
on professional services including tax, personal financial planning and business consulting. The other two ads spotlight
the wide spectrum of CPA services available to individuals and businesses [. . .]. Three new PDF brochures to distribute
to clients and potential clients can also be accessed through the Tool Kit [. . .]. Each brochure has an accompanying
speech, which can be found in the speech section. Also in the speech section is a tax planning speech and power point
presentation. [. . .]. Members can also find general marketing guidance and online marketing tips on the Kit, including a
sample e-newsletter–a great way to stay in touch with clients. In addition, the Tool Kit includes sections on customer
service and successful selling and contains valuable advice on conducting client satisfaction surveys, providing a
sample survey and cover letter for member use (AICPA, 2004, emphases added).
This tool kit kept growing and improving and in 2010, the AICPA and the Association for Accounting Marketing (AAM)
published ‘‘Bull’s-Eye! The Ultimate How-To Marketing & Sales Guide for CPAs’’. The purpose was to help accounting firms
expand their client base and increase their bottom line. This guide comprised ‘‘a comprehensive how-to guide, featuring best
practices, case studies and tips to help CPA firms of all sizes strengthen their sales and client service skills’’ (AICPA, 2010,
emphasis added). Reportedly, 37 industry experts contributed chapters to the above guide on topics such as ‘‘social media
marketing’’, how to build an effective website, how to generate publicity using public relations, and how to create opportunities
through community activities (AICPA, 2010, emphases added).
The AICPA thus clearly accelerated its investments and devoted significant resources to help the profession sell and obtain
more business. In addition to numerous selling tips and advice, there was also a close collaboration with sales and marketing
experts emphasized. Simultaneously, adherence to professional standards is also mentioned, but seems to be only
considered as an ancillary aspect of accountants’ work:
29
The AICPA got involved in the ‘‘Accounting for Sustainability’’ project founded by The Prince of Wales (Britain’s Prince Charles) in 2004.
There is no such thing as a natural born salesperson. Successful selling is a constant learning experience, an experience
where you’ll learn as much about yourself, as you will learn about your clients. Before you sell anything, make sure you
first know your target audience and the services you want to promote. Once you have established those two pieces, you
then will be ready to develop your own unique selling proposition [. . .]. In developing your unique selling proposition it is
important to include the CPA difference or what sets you apart from other accountants and business advisors. CPA’s
have met stringent education and experience requirements, your work must be performed in accordance with high
quality technical and professional standards and you must adhere to a strict code of professional ethics (AICPA, 2006b,
emphases added).
Further, CPAs were encouraged to improve their client-service skills by attending seminars and ‘‘cultivating a service
orientation’’ but also heavily emphasizing client communications skills. This concern to provide high-level customer service
led to the idea of implementing customer service satisfaction measurement through surveys and an incentive system to
recognize efforts made for outstanding client service:
Firms that wish to provide outstanding client service find success by reinforcing positive behavior in that area. For
example, your firm could set up a system for acknowledging actions that demonstrate a commitment to outstanding
service [. . .]. To further reinforce positive behavior, firms should reward employees who are recognized through the
firm’s program. The rewards need not have a high monetary value, but should have strong appeal, such as gift
certificates, cash or event tickets. Attaching a reward to the recognition demonstrates the firm’s principals are
willing to share the benefits of providing outstanding client service with their employees (AICPA, 2006c, employee
service).
Once the crisis management episode following Enron was considered over by AICPA leaders, impressions of insiders
(CPAs) and outsiders (non-CPAs) no longer needed to be actively ‘‘managed’’. The tension between the professional and
commercial logics, which had become apparent during the scandal, became less perceptible as times went by and the
previous pre-Enron stability of 1997–2001, whereby the commercial logic ‘‘unproblematically’’ prevailed upon the
professional one, slowly reformed, almost naturally, without provoking public outcry.
7. Discussion and conclusion
The Enron scandal and its aftermath precipitated a crisis of trust and confidence in the accounting profession to the point
that the profession’s self-regulated status was undermined by the creation of the Public Company Accounting Oversight
Board, an external surveillance agency. Our interest was in understanding how an authoritative collective actor in the
accounting field – the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) – sought to restore the profession’s
damaged reputation. To this aim, we studied the AICPA leaders’ web communications, addressed to the members and to
outsiders of the profession, between 1997 and 2010.
We find that, from 1997 to 2001, the professional logic is discursively de-emphasized and the marketing language is used
to convince clients and CPAs alike that accountants-so-called ‘‘New CPAS’’ – are multi-competent professionals and ‘‘key
decision makers’’ who directly ‘‘contribute to the bottom line.’’ From 2002 to 2004, the language of parrhesia dominates – the
courage of saying ‘‘no in the face of overwhelming pressures’’ and the audacity of full disclosure regardless of the commercial
risks involved are depicted as essential traits of CPAs, who are exhorted to ‘‘live by the spirit as well as the meaning of
integrity.’’ From 2005 to 2010, a certain level of ambiguity and bilingualism is noticeable as the language of marketing
resurfaces but it does not entirely overshadow the language of parrhesia.
When discourses by powerful and authoritative agents contradict themselves, their implications for action are not clear
and the types of behaviors that are suitable or unsuitable become negotiable, which may open the door to ‘‘ethical
relativism’’: AICPA leaders’ inconsistent front-stage performances convey confused impressions as to what type of behavior
is deviant or appropriate for certified public accountants30. What being an accountant means and involves in terms of moral
and technical competences remains as ambiguous and negotiable as ever (e.g., seeking ‘‘honesty, integrity and objectivity’’
and an ‘‘unswerving commitment to honorable behavior, even at the sacrifice of personal advantage’’, or learning marketing
tricks to ‘‘get to the market before others’’?).
These discursive shifts, we argue, reflect the institutional complexity of the accounting field. Yet, this reflection is not
predictable – there is significant room for interpretation of what institutional complexity involves in terms of rhetorical
choices. There is no unique mix of vocabulary, metaphors, catchphrases, and prescriptions that captures the essence of the
accounting field’s professional and commercial prescriptions. The coexistence of these logics does not lead to the
institutionalization of only one kind of bilingualism. AICPA leaders demonstrate a high level of discretion in the way in which
they choose to combine both languages.
30
Surprisingly however, holding contradictory messages over time does not seem to have led informed stakeholders to have less confidence in the
profession, as suggested by polls: ‘‘We were down low in 2002 because of Enron and other things, so now I would guess that we’re probably just about back
up to where we were before the scandal broke.’’ (p. 1 of the document entitled ‘‘Public Opinion of Accountants on the Rise’’ based on a Harris Interactive
telephone poll, published in 2006 by the New York State Society of CPAs. Summary available at: http://www.nysscpa.org/trustedprof/1006a/tp9.htm).
Viewed from the perspective of Stiegler (2006; 2010), who claims that marketing is the language of the dominant higher-
order institutional logic that permeates all social strata within our consumerist societies31, it should not come as a surprise
that accountants are imbued with this language. Phillips et al. (2004, p. 645) indeed claim that a ‘‘discourse that is consistent
with and supported by other, broader discourses will produce more powerful institutions because their self-regulating
mechanisms will reinforce each other.’’ Conversely, it is argued that the existence of competing discourses will reduce the
likelihood that a discourse may produce institutions.
We can speculate another plausible reason why AICPA leaders’ use of the marketing language so quickly reappeared after
a short period of abstinence between 2002 and 2004 – the AICPA is an eminently political actor. We thus cannot rule out the
possibility of mere cynicism. From this angle, the navigation by AICPA leaders between the language of parrhesia and the
language of marketing might just indicate a conscious exploitation of the field’s institutional complexity for the sole purpose
of furthering the profession’s interests. Such duality, we shall add, is only successful so long as inconsistencies between the
AICPA’s various ‘‘stage performances’’ over time remain unnoticed, to borrow Goffman’s (1959) words, or so long as these
inconsistencies fail to surprise anyone.
A radically opposed explanation would be to consider that AICPA leaders’ shifting discourses are not indicative of any
attempt to manage impressions. Following Boltanski and Thévenot’s (2006, p. 37) work on grammars of justification, we
could have assumed that ‘‘people do not ordinarily seek to invent false pretexts after the fact so as to cover some secret
motive (. . .); rather they seek to carry out their actions in such a way that these can withstand the test of justification’’. AICPA
leaders were perhaps perfectly transparent and honest in their communications; they might agree on a higher common
principle (protecting the public’s interest) and reiterate it when subjected to an imperative of justification, but might no
longer mention this higher common principle in more peaceful situations simply because there is no need for justification in
times of trust. We however argue that when the discourse used in situations of concord and harmony is radically different
from the discourse used in the context of public critique, a legitimate suspicion may arise regarding the authenticity of the
higher common principle invoked in the latter context.
We see our contribution as threefold. First, we empirically expose how discursive strategies are adjusted by AICPA
leaders based on what the dominant, higher-level, societal institutional logic prescribes. In times of economic turbulence
where unbridled commercialism is demonized by the press and by accounting scholars, AICPA leaders’ inspirational
speech of contrition and parrhesia reassures the public and galvanizes demoralized accountants in search of legitimacy. In
less agitated times, the discourse of parrhesia fades away and is juxtaposed to the marketing discourse, which we and prior
research (see, for instance, Gendron & Barrett, 2004 or Fogarty et al., 2006) indicate was prevalent before the Enron
scandal.
Second, we approach the notion of institutional complexity (Greenwood et al., 2011; Thornton et al., 2012) from a slightly
different angle than prior studies. Research on institutional complexity has so far predominantly focused on how practices,
organizational structures and organizational identities may reflect tensions between logics and how those tensions are
resolved. We suggest that discursive impression management processes used by professional associations are also worthy of
analysis because they can be good indicators of how specific agents interpret tensions between different institutional logics.
To go beyond the opposition between the professional and commercial logics in the accounting professional field, we suggest
that the notion of institutional complexity needs to be further unpacked – it can be interpreted, translated or even
constructed in various ways, depending on the social actor and specific situation considered, as indicated by the evolving
form and content of AICPA leaders’ bilingualism between 1997 and 2010.
Third, we suggest that institutional complexity can be seen as a resource rather than a constraint – the ambiguity
produced by ongoing tensions between different institutional logics can increase organizational leaders’ argumentative kits
and repertoires of impression management processes. Morales, Gendron, & Guénin-Paracini (2014) have focused on how
what they call ‘‘hegemonic practices of articulation’’ can partially fix meanings. In contrast, we have studied practices of
articulation that consist in shifting between unstable meanings. This navigation between different conceptions of being an
accountant contributes to cultivating and continuously (re)constructing the institutional complexity of the accounting
professional field.
This study also opens new research avenues. How can discourses which represent an inversion of one of society’s
dominant discourses durably produce institutions? A growing body of research provides empirical illustrations of how logics
and discourses may collide horizontally at the level of an organization, or at the level of a field. We suggest that more
research is needed to better understand how logics and discourses may also collide vertically at different institutional levels
(e.g., the organizational level, the field level, and the societal level). In this context, it would be useful to document the
conditions that allow resistance of the lower-order logic against the higher-order logic to be successful and trigger
institutional shifts at the higher institutional level.
31
In these books, Bernard Stiegler argues that the present libidinal economic regime is made possible, among other things, by an extensive use of
marketing, which, like the Sophists’ rhetoric in Aristotle’s times, is a language used for psycho-technical manipulation. Marketing contributes to destroying
the Superego barriers of consumers. Without a Superego, consumers cannot sublimate their desires and ‘‘pulsions’’ (e.g., impulse buying) are let go, which
paves the way for a society of carelessness. The libidinal economic regime has also contributed, he further argues, to creating a world where there are only
two main categories of individuals: producers on one side and consumers on the other – that is to say, proletarians everywhere. In other words, both
consumers and producers are ‘‘intoxicated’’ by the marketing language.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank Editor-in-Chief Yves Gendron, two anonymous reviewers, Marcia Annisette, David Cooper,
Royston Greenwood, William Jackson (discussant at the 36th EAA Annual Congress), Den Patten, Carlos Ramirez, Sue
Ravenscroft (discussant at the 2012 AAA’s Public Interest Section Mid-Year Meeting), Keith Robson, Joni Young and the
participants of the 2012 American Accounting Association’s Public Interest Section Mid-Year Meeting, the 2012 Alternative
Accounts Conference and the 36th European Accounting Association Annual Congress for their valuable comments and
feedback on earlier versions of this paper. Charles Cho also acknowledges financial support received from the Concordia
University’s RBC Professorship in Responsible Organizations and the ESSEC Research Center (CERESSEC). Marion Brivot
acknowledges financial support received from the Fonds Québécois de Recherche Société et Culture (FQRSC).
Appendix
Source documents collected and used for the case study
Document type Date Author
1 Press Release 1 January 30, 1997 AICPA

3 Press Release 3 June 4, 2001 AICPA
4 Press Release 4 February 13, 2002 AICPA
5 Press Release 5 September 4, 2002 AICPA
7 Press Release 7 May 22, 2005 AICPA
8 Press Release 8 July 22, 2005 AICPA
9 Press Release 9 June 13, 2006 AICPA
10 Press Release 10 August 4, 2010 AICPA
11 Webpage 1 December 4, 2004 AICPA
12 Webpage 2 September 19, 2006 AICPA
13 Webpage 3 September 19, 2006 AICPA
14 Webpage 4 November 16, 2009 AICPA
15 Webpage 5 October 19, 2009 Ramos, M.
16 Webpage 6 June 13, 2012 AICPA
17 Webpage 7 November 16, 2014 AICPA
18 Inaugural Speech 1 October 21, 1997 Kessler, S.
19 Inaugural Speech 2 October 22, 2002 Ezzell, W.F.
20 Inaugural Speech 3 October 21, 2003 Voynich, S.S.
21 Inaugural Speech 4 October 25, 2005 Murphy, L.A.
22 Inaugural Speech 5 October 20, 2009 Harris, R.R.
23 Letters/messages from President/Chair 1 January 18, 1998 Melancon, B.C.
24 Letters/messages from President/Chair 2 October, 2005 Melancon, B.C.
25 Letters/messages from President/Chair 2 November 2, 2009 Harris, R.R.
26 Keynote Address 1 December 12, 2002 Ezzell, W.F.
27 Keynote Address 2 December 10, 2003 Voynich, S.S.
28 Other Speeches/Remarks 1 September 4, 2002 Melancon, B.C.
29 Other Speeches/Remarks 2 December 5, 2005 Murphy, L.A.
30 Campaign Advertisement 2000 AICPA
31 Official Report 2011 AICPA
References
Primary sources
AICPA (1997). Accounting profession shatters stereotype with help from Hollywood. AICPA Press Release January 30, 1997.
AICPA (2000a). AICPA strikes alliance with fidelity to help CPAs provide investment advisory services. AICPA Press Release January 11, 2000.
AICPA (2000b). On a clear day, you can the future of your business. AICPA first Image Campaign Business Insight.
AICPA (2001). Phyllis Bernstein to launch consulting firm. AICPA Press Release June 4, 2001.
AICPA (2002a). AICPA launches new ad campaign to help restore confidence in the profession. AICPA Press Release February 13, 2002.
AICPA (2002b). AICPA president call for rejuvenated accounting culture. AICPA Press Release September 4, 2002.
AICPA (2003). AICPA comments on SEC’s proposed rules to enhance independence of accounting profession. AICPA Press Release January 10, 2003.
AICPA (2004). CPA marketing tool kit. New Resource for Member December 4, 2004.
AICPA (2005a). CPA profession receives high marks from business decision makers, executives and investors, new study shows. AICPA Press Release May 22, 2005.
AICPA (2005b). AICPA white paper makes the case for CPAs as CFOs: Why CPAs are uniquely qualified to be Chief Financial Officers. AICPA Press Release July 22, 2005.
AICPA (2006a). AICPA merges management of enhanced business reporting and XBRL initiatives. AICPA Press Release June 13, 2006.
AICPA (2006b). Successful selling tips – Basics. Career Tab September 19, 2006.
AICPA (2006c). Customer service tips – Practical tips for achieving outstanding client service. Career Tab September 19, 2006.
AICPA (2009). AICPA in the News. AICPA Media Center November 16, 2009.
AICPA (2010). AICPA and Association for Accounting Marketing publish guide to help CPA firms gain clients, boost their bottom line. AICPA Press Release August 4, 2010.
AICPA (2011). The CPA Vision Project: 2011 and Beyond.
AICPA (2012a). The CITP Credential. http://www.aicpa.org/InterestAreas/InformationTechnology/Membership/Pages/CITPOverview.aspx
AICPA (2014). AICPA Launches Global Management Accounting Principles. Kansas Society of CPAs http://www.kscpa.org/about/news/source/1-aicpa
Ezzell, W. F. (2002a). Standing up for what we stand for. Inaugural Speech at AICPA’s Fall Meeting October 22, 2002.
Ezzell, W. F. (2002b). Upholding the public trust. Keynote Address at the 2002 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC Developments December 12, 2002.
Harris, R. R. (2009a). Changes in latitude, changes in attitude. Inaugural Speech at AICPA’s Fall Meeting October 20, 2009.
Harris, R. R. (2009b). Chair’s Letter November 2, 2009.
Kessler, S. (1997). The CPA – A new meaning for a new beginning. Inaugural Speech at AICPA’s Fall Meeting October 21, 1997.
Melancon, B. C. (1998). The new CPA: Matching image with reality. Letter from the President January 18, 1998.
Melancon, B. C. (2002). A new accounting culture. Remarks at forum convened by the Yale Graduate School of Management September 4, 2002.
Murphy, L. A. (2005a). The demands of diversity: One size does not fit all. Inaugural Speech at AICPA’s Fall Meeting October 25, 2005.
Murphy, L. A. (2005b). Remarks at the 2005 AICPA SEC-PCABO Current Developments Conference, December 5, 2005.
Ramos, M. (2009). Ride the bear: Strategies for CPA firms to survive, thrive, and grow in a down economy. AICPA Practice Forward Series October 19, 2009.
Voynich, S. S. (2003a). Integrity in action. Inaugural Speech at the AICPA’s Fall Meeting October 21, 2003.
Voynich, S. S. (2003b). Driving change: A matter of integrity. Keynote Address at the 2003 AICPA National Conference on Current SEC Developments December 10,
2003.
Secondary sources
Abbott, A. (1988). The system of professions: An essay on the division of expert labor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Abidin, S., Beattie, V., & Goodacre, A. (2010). Audit market structure, fees and choice in a period of structural change: Evidence from the UK – 1998–2003. British
Accounting Review, 42(3), 187–206.
Alford, R., & Friedland, R. (1985). Powers of theory: Capitalism, the state and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Amernic, J., & Craig, R. (2004). Reform of accounting education in the post-Enron era: Moving accounting ‘out of the shadows’. Abacus, 40(1), 342–378.
Asthana, S., Balsam, S., & Kim, S. (2009). The effect of Enron, Andersen, and Sarbanes Oxley on the US market for audit services. Accounting Research Journal, 22(1),
4–26.
Baker, R. L., Bealing, W. E., Nelson, D. A., & Staley, A. B. (2006). An institutional perspective of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Managerial Auditing Journal, 21(1), 23–33.
Baker, C. R., Bédard, J., & Prat dit Hauret, C. (2014). The regulation of statutory auditing: An institutional theory approach. Managerial Auditing Journal, 29(5), 371–
394.
Barrett, M., & Gendron, Y. (2006). WebTrust and the ‘‘commercialistic auditor’’: The unrealized vision of developing auditor trustworthiness in cyberspace.
Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal, 19(5), 631–662.
Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1967). The social construction of reality. New York: Doubleday Anchor.
Boin, A., & Hart, P. (2003). Public leadership in times of crisis: Mission impossible? Public Administration Review, 63, 544–553.
Boltanski, L., & Thévenot, L. (2006). On justification: economies of worth. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Brewster, N. (2003). Unaccountable: How the accounting profession forfeited a public trust. Hoboken: John Wiley.
Brint, S. (1994). In an age of experts. Princeton, NY: Princeton University Press.
Bryman, A., & Bell, E. (2003). Business research methods. New York: Oxford University Press.
Burrowes, A., Kastantin, J., & Novicevic, M. (2004). The Sarbanes-Oxley Act as a hologram of post-Enron disclosure: A critical realist commentary. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 15, 797–811.
Cahan, S., & Zhang, W. (2006). After Enron: Auditor conservatism and ex-Andersen clients. The Accounting Review, 81(January), 49–82.
Carcello, J., Hollingsworth, C., & Mastrolia, M. (2011). The effect of PCAOB inspections on Big 4 audit quality. Research in Accounting Regulation, 23(2), 85–96.
Carnegie, G., & Napier, C. (2010). Traditional accountants and business professionals: Portraying the accounting profession after Enron. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 35(3), 360–376.
Carnegie, G. D., & O’Connell, B. T. (2012). Understanding the responses of professional accounting bodies to crises: The case of the Australian profession in the
1960s. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 25(5), 835–875.
Carpenter, V., & Feroz, E. (2001). Institutional theory and accounting rule choice: An analysis of four US state governments’ decisions to adopt generally accepted
accounting principles. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 26, 565–596.
Chiasson, M., Gaharan, C., & Mauldin, S. (2006). A history of the development of the AICPA’s specialty designation program. The CPA Journal, (January). http://www.
nysscpa.org/cpajournal/2006/106/essentials/p64.htm
Cialdini, R. (1984). Influence. The new psychology of modern persuasion. New York: Quill.
Collins, D. (2004). Book review of take on the street: what wall street and corporate America don’t want you to know by A. Levitt and P. Dwyer. Organizational
Analysis, 12(1), 77–81.
Cooper, D., & Robson, K. (2006). Accounting, professions and regulation: Locating the sites of professionalization. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 31(4–5),
415–444.
Covaleski, M., Dirsmith, M. W., & Rittenberg, L. (2003). Jurisdictional disputes over professional work: The institutionalization of the global knowledge expert.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 28(4), 325–355.
Craig, R., & Amernic, J. (2004). Enron discourse: the rhetoric of a resilient capitalism. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15, 813–851.
Daly, B. A., & Schuler, D. K. (1998). Redefining a certified public accounting firm. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 23(5/6), 549–567.
DeFond, M., & Francis, J. (2005). Audit research after Sarbanes-Oxley. Auditing: A Journal of Practice and Theory, 24(s-1), 5–30.
DeFond, M., & Lennox, C. (2011). The effect of SOX on small auditor exits and audit quality. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 52(1), 21–40.
Diamond, M. (2005). Accounting education, research and practice: After Enron, where do we go? European Accounting Review, 14(2), 353–362.
DiMaggio, P. J. (1983). State expansion and organizational fields. In R. H. Hall & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Organizational theory and public policy (pp. 147–161). Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Dubar, C. (2010). La socialisation. Paris: Armand Colin.
Dunne, P., Falk, H., Forker, J., & Powell, R. (2008). The market response to information quality shocks: The case of Enron. Applied Financial Economics, 18, 1051–1066.
Elliott, R. K. (1997). Assurance services opportunities: implications for academia. Accounting Horizons, 11(4), 61–74.
Elsbach, K. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of verbal accounts. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 39, 57–88.
Elsbach, K. (2006). Organizational perception management. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc Publishers.
Elsbach, K., & Sutton, R. (1992). Acquiring organizational legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institutional and impression management
theories. Academy of Management Journal, 4, 699–738.
Ezzamel, M., Robson, K., & Stapleton, P. (2012). The logics of budgeting: Theorization and practice variation in the educational field. Accounting, Organizations and
Society, 37(5), 281–303.
Fogarty, T. S., Radcliffe, V. S., & Campbell, D. R. (2006). Accountancy before the fall: The AICPA vision project and related professional enterprises. Accounting,
Organizations and Society, 31(1), 1–25.
Fogarty, T., & Radcliffe, V. (1999). Extending practice: Accountant’s constructions of the industrial relations arena in the USA. Accounting, Auditing and
Accountability Journal, 12(5), 525–560.
Foucault, M. (1999). In J. Pearson (Ed.), Discourse and truth: The problematization of Parrhesia. Transcription of an audio file http://foucault.info/system/files/pdf/
DiscourseAndTruth_MichelFoucault_1983_0.pdf
Foucault, M. (2011). The courage of truth: The government of self and others II. Translated by Burchell G. Lectures at the Collège de France. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Friedland, R., & Alford, R. (1991). Bringing society back in: Symbols, practices, and institutional contradictions. In W. Powell & P. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new
institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 232–263). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gendron, Y., & Barrett, M. (2004). Professionalization in action: Accountants’ attempt at building a network of support for the WebTrust seal of assurance.
Contemporary Accounting Research, 21(3), 563–602.
Gendron, Y., & Spira, L. F. (2010). Identity narratives under threat: a study of former members of Arthur Andersen. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 35(3),
275–300.
Gendron, Y., & Suddaby, R. (2004). Professional insecurity and the erosion of accountancy’s jurisdictional boundaries. Canadian Accounting Perspectives, 3(1),
85–115.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.
Grayson, M. (2004). The lessons of Enron. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15, 1003–1004.
Greenwood, R., & Suddaby, R. (2006). Institutional entrepreneurship in mature fields: the big five accounting firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49, 27–48.
Greenwood, R., Raynard, M., Kodeih, F., Micelotta, E., & Lounsbury, M. (2011). Institutional complexity and organizational responses. The Academy of Management
Annals, 5(1), 317–371.
Greenwood, R., Suddaby, R., & Hinings, C. R. (2002). Theorizing change: the role of professional associations in the transformation of institutionalized fields.
Academy of Management Journal, 45, 58–80.
Guénin-Paracini, H., & Gendron, Y. (2010). Auditors as modern pharmakoi: legitimacy paradoxes and the production of economic order. Critical Perspectives on
Accounting, 21(2), 134–158.
Guénin-Paracini, H., Malsch, B., & Marché-Paillé, A. (2014). Fear and risk in the audit process. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 39(4), 264–288.
Hägg, I., & Hedlund, G. (1979). ‘‘Case studies’’ in accounting research. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 4(1–2), 135–143.
Hanlon, G. (1994). The commercialization of accountancy: Flexible accumulation and the transformation of the service class. London: McMillan.
Hanlon, G. (1996). Casino capitalism and the transformation of the service class: An examination of the accountant. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 7(3),
339–363.
Helio, F. G. (2006). Effective leadership response to crisis. Strategy & Leadership, 34(1), 4–10.
Hogan, C. E., & Martin, R. D. (2009). Risk shifts in the market for audits: An examination of changes in risk for ‘‘second tier’’ audit firms. Auditing: A Journal of Practice
& Theory, 28(2), 93–118.
Humphrey, C., Moizer, P., & Turely, S. (1992). The audit expectations gap–plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose? Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 3(2),
137–161.
Iliev, P. (2010). The effect of SOX Section 404: Costs, earnings quality, and stock prices. The Journal of Finance, 65(3), 1163–1196.
Jeacle, I. (2008). Beyond the boring grey: The construction of the colourful accountant. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 19(8), 1296–1320.
Jelinek, R., & Jelinek, K. (2008). Auditors gone wild: The ‘‘other’’ problem in public accounting. Business Horizons, 52, 223–233.
Khalifa, R., Sharma, N., Humphrey, C., & Robson, K. (2007). Discourse and audit change. Transformations in methodology in the professional audit field. Accounting,
Auditing & Accountability Journal, 20(6), 825–854.
Kilfoyle, E. (2012). From global to local: A closer look at the diversification of global management accounting and control practices. Working paper. Presented at the
American Accounting Association’s annual meeting on August 7, in Washington, DC.
Knechel, R., Krishnan, G., Pevzner, M., Shefchik, L., & Velury, U. (2013). Audit quality: Insights from the academic literature. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory,
32(Suppl. 1), 385–421.
Kohlbeck, M., Mayhew, B., Murphy, P., & Wilkins, M. (2008). Competition for Andersen’s clients. Contemporary Accounting Research, 25(4), 1099–1136.
Kotler, P. (2005). The role played by the broadening of marketing movement in the history of marketing thought. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 24(1),
114–116.
Kotler, P., & Bloom, P. N. (1984). Marketing professional services. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. London: Sage Publications.
Krishnan, G. (2007). Did earnings conservatism increase for former Andersen clients? Journal of Accounting, Auditing & Finance, 22, 141–163.
Lander, M., Koene, B., & Linssen, S. (2013). Committed to professionalism: Organizational responses of mid-tier accounting firms to conflicting institutional logics.
Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(2), 130–148.
Landsman, W. R., Nelson, K. K., & Rountree, B. R. (2009). Auditor switches in the pre- and post-Enron eras: Risk or realignment. The Accounting Review, 84(2), 531–
558.
Law, P. (2010). CPAs’ employment with former audit clients and auditor independence in the Post-Enron era. Managerial Auditing Journal, 25(3), 240–258.
Lee, T. (1995). The professionalization of accountancy: A history of protecting the public interest in a self-interested way. Accounting, Auditing and Accountability
Journal, 8(4), 48–69.
Leicht, K. T., & Fennell, M. L. (2001). Professional work: A sociological approach. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
Lounsbury, M. (2007). A tale of two cities: competing logics and practice variation in the professionalizing of mutual funds. Academy of Management Journal, 50(2),
289–307.
Lounsbury, M. (2008). Institutional rationality and practice variation: new directions in the institutional analysis of practice. Accounting, Organizations and Society,
33, 349–361.
Malsch, B. (2013). Politicizing the expertise of the accounting industry in the realm of corporate social responsibility. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 38(2),
149–168.
Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2011). Reining in auditors: On the dynamics of power surrounding an ‘‘innovation’’ in the regulatory space. Accounting, Organizations
and Society, 36(7), 456–476.
Malsch, B., & Gendron, Y. (2013). Re-theorizing change: Institutional experimentation and the struggle for domination in the field of public accounting. Journal of
Management Studies, 50(5), 870–899.
Morales, J., Gendron, Y., & Guénin-Paracini, H. (2014). State privatization and the unrelenting expansion of neoliberalism: The case of the Greek financial crisis.
Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 25(6), 423–445.
Neu, D. (1991). Trust impression management and the public accounting profession. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 2, 295–313.
Neu, D., Friesen, C., & Everett, J. (2003). The changing internal market for ethical discourses in the Canadian CA profession. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability
Journal, 16, 70–103.
Macintosh, N. B. (2009). Accounting and the truth of earnings reports: Philosophical considerations. European Accounting Review, 18(1), 141–175.
Phillips, N., Lawrence, T., & Hardy, C. (2004). Discourse and institutions. Academy of Management Review, 29(4), 635–652.
Picard, C.-F. (2015). Le champ comptable à l’heure du basculement vers une logique de marché, Propagation de représentations commercialisées, infiltration de
l’expertise-marketing et instrumentalisation de l’évaluation académique. PhD Thesis, Université Laval.
Picard, C.-F., Durocher, S., & Gendron, Y. (2014). From meticulous professionals to superheroes of the business world: A historical portrait of cultural change in the
field of accountancy. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 27(1), 73–118.
Power, M. (1997). Expertise and the construction of relevance: Accountants and environmental audits. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 22(2), 123–146.
Previts, J. G., & Merino, B. D. (1998). A history of accountancy in the United States: The cultural significance of accounting. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
Radcliffe, V., Cooper, D., & Robson, K. (1994). The management of professional enterprises and regulatory change: British accountancy and the Financial Services
Act 1986. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19, 601–628.
Raelin, J. (1985). The basis for the professional’s resistance to managerial control. Human Resource Management, 24(2), 147–175.
Rajagopalan, P. (2012). Reforming executive compensation: What do we know and where do we go?. The Journal of Business. Entrepreneurship & The Law, 4(2),
425–447.
Ramirez, C. (2013). ‘We are being pilloried for something, we did not even know we had done wrong!’ Quality control and orders of worth in the British audit
profession Journal of Management Studies, 50(5), 845–869.
Rao, H., Monin, P., & Durand, R. (2003). Institutional change in ToqueVille: Nouvelle cuisine as an identity movement in French gastronomy. American Journal of
Sociology, 108, 795–843.
Reay, T., & Hinings, C. (2009). Managing the rivalry of competing institutional logics. Organization Studies, 30(6), 629–652.
Robson, K., Willmott, H., Cooper, D. J., & Puxty, T. (1994). The ideology of professional regulation and the markets for accounting labour: Three episodes in the
recent history of the UK accounting profession. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 19(6), 527–553.
Rogers, R., Dillard, J., & Yuthas, K. (2005). The accounting profession: Substantive change and/or image management. Journal of Business Ethics, 58(1/3), 159–176.
Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression management: The self-concept, social identity, and interpersonal relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Shafer, W., & Gendron, Y. (2005). Analysis of a failed jurisdictional claim. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 18(4), 453–491.
Sikka, P., Haslam, C., Kyriacou, O., & Agrizzi, D. (2007). Professionalising claims and the state of UK professional accountancy education: Some evidence. Accounting
Education: An International Journal, 16(1), 3–21.
Sikka, P. (2009). Financial crisis and the silence of the auditors. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 34(6–7), 868–873.
Simpson, Z. (2012). The truths we tell ourselves: Foucault on Parrhesia. Foucault Studies, 13, 99–115.
Smith, D. (2005). Business (not) as usual: Crisis management, service recovery and the vulnerability of organisations. Journal of Services Marketing, 19(5), 309–320.
Stiegler, B. (2006). Mécréance et discrédit. Paris: Galilée.
Stiegler, B. (2010). For a new critique of political economy Trans. Daniel Ross Cambridge: Polity Press.
Stringfellow, L., McMeeking, K., & Maclean, M. (2014). From four to zero? The social mechanisms of symbolic domination in the UK accounting field. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting.
Suddaby, R., & Greenwood, R. (2005). Rhetorical strategies of legitimacy. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50, 35–67.
Thornton, P., & Ocasio, W. (2008). Institutional logics. In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, & R. Suddaby (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism
(pp. 99–129). London: Sage.
Thornton, P., Ocasio, W., & Lounsbury, M. (2012). The institutional logics perspective. A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Unerman, J., O’Dwyer, B., Enron, WorldCom, Andersen. et al. (2004). A challenge to modernity. Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 15, 971–993.
Walker, S. (1995). The genesis of professional organization in Scotland: a contextual analysis. Accounting, Organizations and Society, 20(4), 285–310.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Series No. 07-049. London: Sage
Publications.
Wyatt, A. (2004). Accounting professionalism – They just don’t get it! Accounting Horizons, 18(1), 45–53.
Zeff, S. A. (2003a). How the US accounting profession got where it is today: Part 1. Accounting Horizons, 17(3), 189–205.
Zeff, S. A. (2003b). How the US accounting profession got where it is today: Part II. Accounting Horizons, 17(4), 267–286.

Marketing or Parrhesia

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marketing or Parrhesia

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Critical Perspectives on Accounting 31 (2015) 23–43

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Critical Perspectives on Accounting

Marketing or parrhesia: A longitudinal study of AICPA’s

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +33(0)1-34-43-28-27.

2. The accounting profession’s response to the Enron crisis

3. Institutional complexity, parrhesia and marketing

(excerpt from a poem by Grayson, 2004, p. 1003).

4. Discursive impression management processes

6.1. 1997–2001 – Rebranding and expansion: the reign of marketing language

6.1.1. Rebranding CPAs’ image and bolstering accountants’ pride

6.1.2. Scope of services offered by CPAs

6.2. 2002–2004 – The immediate post-Enron period

6.2.2. Emphasis on integrity, ethics, unity and parrhesia

6.4. Business opportunities for (new) services offered by CPAs

6.4.1. Marketing, sales and customer service (‘‘America Counts on CPAs’’)

7. Discussion and conclusion

Source documents collected and used for the case study

Document type Date Author

1 Press Release 1 January 30, 1997 AICPA

You might also like