Employee benefits of multi‐owner accounting firms: groundwork for benchmarking

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this research paper is to provide practitioners and researchers with guidance and ideas for benchmarking employee benefits in companies providing professional services. The research addressed employee benefits in multi‐owner accounting firms.

Design/methodology/approach

Data from a survey of a large number of multi‐owner accounting firms (CPA firms) were analyzed to examine professional employee benefits and to look at the relationship between firm size and benefits offered.

Findings

An analysis of survey results suggested that larger firms offer better benefits than smaller firms. Larger firms tend also to be more profitable. Various employee benefit metrics were examined.

Research limitations/implications

The survey was limited to accounting firms in the United States, so the findings may have limited value for researchers and practitioners in other countries.

Practical implications

The better benefits offered by larger accounting firms may allow them to attract better personnel, possibly accounting for their greater profitability. If this is indeed true, then a good benefit package may well be a key success factor for accounting firms, and possibly for other professional services. Firms seeking to improve their competitive position may, therefore, find it advantageous to benchmark their professional employee benefits against the benefit packages of larger more profitable competitors.

Originality/value

This paper examines professional employee benefits in multi‐owner accounting firms and identifies metrics that could be useful to practitioners in benchmarking those benefits. The metrics identified and other findings may provide practitioners with ideas for benchmarking benefits in other professional service organizations.

Citation

McGaughey, R., Puleo, V. and Casey, K.M. (2005), "Employee benefits of multi‐owner accounting firms: groundwork for benchmarking", Benchmarking: An International Journal, Vol. 12 No. 4, pp. 354-363. https://doi.org/10.1108/14635770510609024