Partnership attributes and partnership success in accounting firms: a conceptual perspective and further directions

Abstract

Purpose

More complexity, less freedom, distrust and a lack of information seem to pose threats to the success of partner relationships in accounting firms, as approximately 70% of business partnerships fail globally, undermining SDG 17. The low competitive intensity in this industry seems not to help the current situation. Yet, the existing strategic alliance (SA) literature have been somewhat sluggish in adequately addressing how partnership attributes (PAs) affect partnership success (PS) and how brand competition (BC) impacts this relationship. In response, this conceptual work addresses the impact of PAs on PS in accounting firms. It further explores the BC conditions under which the PAs–PS connection may be intensified.

Design/methodology/approach

Incorporating theories and empirics on six distinct topics, this study presents a conceptual model and ten hypotheses that are worth testing in future research.

Findings

This research finds that PAs will be favourably linked to PS, and this favourable association will be positively moderated by BC such that the PAs–PS connection will be more pronounced if BC within the accounting industry is high than low.

Research limitations/implications

Further research is needed to empirically test the suppositions made. Also, they could extend the proposed framework to cover other moderators like technological turbulence, market dynamism and government regulation.

Practical implications

Practical lessons for governments, shareholders, chief executive officers, consultants and other industry players, particularly those who are interested in the success of accounting partnership firms, are deliberated.

Originality/value

This study demonstrates how PAs and BC interact to foster PS. It also provides a baseline information for upcoming researchers to investigate other external factors under which the PAs–PS connection may be improved.

Citation

Antwi-Situ, K. and Koomson, S. (2023), "Partnership attributes and partnership success in accounting firms: a conceptual perspective and further directions", Management Matters, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 154-168. https://doi.org/10.1108/MANM-04-2023-0019

1. Introduction

More complexity, less freedom, distrust and a lack of information (Provan, 1984; Kampouri et al., 2020; Williamson, 1975) seem to pose threats to the success of partner relationships in accounting firms globally. This is manifested in rather low rates of success among accounting partnership relationships (Renner et al., 2013), since approximately 70% of business partnerships fail, globally, according to Exit Consulting Group Insight (2021). Essentially, the low competitive intensity among global accounting firms seems not to help the current situation (Krapa, 2022), as it further weakens the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship, thereby undermining the Sustainable Development Aim 17 of the United Nations, which pursues to “… revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development …”

Partnerships are goal-directed strategic alliances among self-governing businesses whose goals are like-minded, seek to achieve a common benefit and declare a large amount of shared interdependence. The partners put their resources together to attain long-term objectives that each business, independently, could have otherwise achieved. The creation of these relationships and alliances is driven principally by the desire to obtain a competitive urge over rival firms within a particular industry (Bleeke and Ernst, 1991; Powell, 1990). In this context, the establishment of partnerships among businesses is progressively becoming a generic approach for businesses to discover and preserve competitive advantage (Mohr and Spekman, 1994).

Indeed, making partnerships is often seen as a way to solve the problem of competitive distresses of single businesses (Mofokeng and Chinomona, 2019). Aside offering competitive advantages, partnerships relationships offer a business an entry to new markets or technologies. It increases the ability of the business to offer a variety of offerings. It also affords the business economies of scale in production and/or joint research; grants access to intellectual resources outside the reach of the organisation; risk sharing; and the opportunity to obtain and harness complementary knowledge and skills (Powell, 1987).

In this conceptual work, four characteristics of partnerships are considered, as used in existing literature (Salmond and Spekman, 1986; Frazier et al., 1988; Dwyer et al., 1987; Day and Klein, 1987; Anderson and Narus, 1990; Mohr and Spekman, 1994). They are partner commitment, partner coordination, partner interdependence and partner trust. Partner commitment is denoted as the readiness of exchange partners to demonstrate effort and enthusiasm for the good of the partnership affiliation (Porter et al., 1974). It advocates a forward-looking orientation where partners try to create an alliance that can overcome unforeseen contingencies. An appreciable degree of commitment creates an environment in which both partners can attain independent and collective goals without raising the spectre of opportunistic behaviour (Cummings, 1984).

Due to the fact that more dedicated partners will apply effort and balance short-term problems with the fulfilment of long-term objectives, it is believed that higher degrees of commitment are connected with success in partnerships (Angle and Perry, 1981). Strong commitment is necessary to maintain a cooperative partnership. Successful working partnerships need the use of coordinated actions based on partner commitment to achieve mutual goals (Anderson and Narus, 1990). The assurance that a bond will remain is fundamental to committed partnerships (Boyle et al., 1992). Partner commitment is required to familiarise user units with the technology and altering inter-organisational work practices.

Partner coordination suggests the collection of duties each partner requires the other to undertake. Narus and Anderson (1977) informs that partnership firms that are successful are characterised by harmonised activities tailored towards achieving common goals that are constant across firms. Pfeffer and Salancik (1978) indicates that consistency and sustainability can be obtained through existing activities largely connected to coordination. With a considerable degree of partner coordination, the partnership firm is able to successfully undertake Just-in-Time processes and, consequently, gain planned mutual advantages.

Interdependence emanates from an alliance where both organisations expect common gains from co-operating (Levine and White, 1961), such that any loss of self-sufficiency will be fairly remunerated via the anticipated benefits (Cummings, 1984). As organisations come together to attain commonly gainful long-term objectives, they admit that each is reliant on the other. This ideology emanates unswervingly from the paradigm of exchange, giving credit to Cook (1977). Both partners acknowledge that the merits of interdependence offer gains that outstrips what either partner could achieve independently. It is unlikely that two companies will form a strategic alliance unless they believe their relationships are sufficiently interconnected that operational savings and benefits are achievable.

Last, but not least, trust is the confidence that a partner's promise is unfailing and that a partner will meet its responsibility in a give and take situation (Pruitt, 1981). It has a strong link to how likely firms are to work together. Williamson (1985) says that if all other things are the same, exchange relationships based on trust will be better able to handle and adapt to stress. Zand (1972) says that a lack of trust will hurt the flow of information, hurt reciprocity and make it harder to solve problems together. A high level of trust makes sure that trade partners will not break the rules, and as the number of partners grows, the system becomes less vulnerable.

Several studies have shown that trust has a positive effect on how well a company does. In 1998, Tsai and Ghoshal (1998) find a strong link between trust and the sharing and trading of resources. Walrod (1999) finds that an organisation's cooperation with and success in business depends most on how well it knew and trusted its exchange partner. Anderson and Narus (1990) shares that once trust is established, businesses learn that working together will lead to partnership success, more than what each business could achieve on its own (Lee and Lim, 2003). The literature suggest that other factors, including communication behaviour and conflict resolution technique also affect the success of partnerships (Mohr and Spekman, 1994).

Interestingly, however, the existing strategic alliance literature have been somewhat sluggish in adequately addressing how partnership attributes inform partnership success (Day and Klein, 1987), thereby leaving a literature gap in the field. The few existing literature are far outdated (e.g. Mohr and Spekman, 1994). To address this literature gap, this concept paper seeks to offer extant literature that will further improve our understanding on the impact of partnership attributes on partnership success. Such an understanding is relevant in addressing the antecedents to forming partnerships with the truth that many of such strategic alliances get destroyed in the early years of operation (Kampouri et al., 2020). In addition, this understanding is important in offering clarity into how these alliances can be harnessed to achieve and maintain success. To this end, the first research question reads:

RQ1.

How does partnership attributes affect partnership success?

Of greater interest, the external environmental conditions under which the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship can be enhanced is yet to be fully investigated in the literature. In particular, the literature on strategic alliances is silent on how external factors, such as brand competition, moderate the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship. To break this silence, this conceptual work seeks to explore how brand competition moderates the partnership attributes–partnership success connection. Brand competition is the enmity between firms providing products or services that are alike and have the same target audience in the same target market with long-term objectives that seek to increase revenues, have a higher market share, growth and huge profits, in comparison to the modern brand existing in a particular market (Zhou et al., 2022).

In the context of this conceptual work, the facet of brand competition functions as a stirring tool for partnership firms to uplift the quantum of their sales, thereby producing better gains by making maximum utilisation of the 4p's of marketing namely; price, product, place and promotion. This competitive pressure emboldens the partnership firms to provide offerings that stand-out to obtain a competitive urge over rival firms and gain everlasting loyalty from existing clientele. Understanding the brand competition conditions under which the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship can be reinforced is crucial in providing antidotes to why many strategic partnerships accounting partnerships do not succeed. Acknowledging that insufficient direction has arisen on how partnership success can be achieved and maintained, knowledge of the moderators of the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship may help in managing partnerships progressively, as well as choosing the kind of parties to associate with.

Furthermore, inconsistencies are present concerning the findings on the linkage between competition and success of firms. While a number of researchers find a positive connection between competition and outcomes of firms (Bar-Isaac, 2005; Ferreira and Kittsteiner, 2015; Kuo, 2013), others (Khattak and Ali, 2021; Poulton et al., 2004) hold a contrary view. To offer instances on researchers who hold this contrary view, Poulton et al. (2004) unveil that, higher degrees of competition are not essentially connected with improved performance of a system. Khattak and Ali (2021) show that intense competition leads to lower performance, profitability and increased risk. Ahinful et al. (2023) demonstrate that intense competition can force companies to be innovative, and this can eventually lead to their success. This result implies that trade-offs exist between the level of competition and the degree of success achieved between players within a sector. Hence, the need arises to further examine the effect of brand competition on a firm-level outcome like partnership success. Under this perspective, the second research question reads:

RQ2.

What is the moderating role of brand competition in the partnership attributes–partnership success connection?

Like all strong alliances, strategic partnerships flourish via give and take. By bringing on board resources and skills that the other party lacks, both partners enlarge their entire tendency to generate value. For most organisations that provide accounting services, this could result in novel services offerings or entry to another market segments. A consulting firm named “The Growth Partnership” released a survey which uncovered the pressing need for organisations to discover business partners. Using data for two decades, the survey report settled that larger accounting firms make more profits: they have the infrastructure, people and leadership to offer a value intention and product mix that attracts a greater pool of clientele. Accounting firms form strategic partnerships to attain a collection of long-term goals. The accomplishment of such goals could offer one signal of success in the relationship. To this end, the purpose of this conceptual work is to further understand the connection between partnership attributes and partnership success and explore the moderating role of brand competition among accounting firms.

2. Literature review

2.1 Resource dependency theory

The argument for a favourable positive connection between partnership attributes and partnership success is explained by the resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003), in which both parties to the partnership recognise their mutual dependency. The partners' ability to understand and harness mutual resources to their advantage is a cornerstone to their success. The resource dependency theory is founded on the belief that an establishment, such as a partnership, must indulge in activities with other players and organisations in its surrounding so as to obtain resources, which is essential to its success. Partnership firms that understand, acknowledge and fully harness their mutual dependency advantages often show more commitment, coordination, interdependence and trust. Displaying more of these partnership characteristics presents benefits. The theory views partnership commitment, partnership coordination, partnership interdependence and partnership trust as key resources that can predict partnership success (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2015).

The views of the resource dependency theory found support in the existing literature. Regarding the impact of partnership attributes on partnership success, Mohr and Spekman (1994) showed that partnership characteristics improved partnership success among partnered firms in the computer industry. Lee and Lim (2003) disclosed that partner attributes favourably influenced companies' tendency to perform electronic data interchange incorporation and improve the proportion of electronic data interchange performance and exchange. Purnomo et al. (2018) also found that partnerships activated business performance. Wang et al. (2018) uncovered that project attributes jointly predicted process coordination effectiveness in China. Mofokeng and Chinomona (2019) reported that supply chain partnership were favourable predictors of supply chain performance. To this end, the first supposition of this conceptual work reads:

S1.

Partnership attributes will be favourably linked to partnership success

Concerning the impact of partner commitment and partnership success, Angle and Perry (1981) reported that substantial amounts of commitment were associated with partnership success, because, parties that showed greater commitment exerted effort to off-set immediate problems with long lasting attainment of goals. Anderson and Weitz (1992) presented that commitment in partnerships is relevant in mollifying a partner's fear of unscrupulous conducts. Mohr and Spekman (1994) showed that partnership commitment reinforced the success of partnership partnered firms in the computer industry. Dooley et al. (2000) revealed that commitment to decisions enhanced implementation success in the United States. Cullen et al. (2000) demonstrated that commitment strengthened the effectiveness of global strategic alliances with the Japanese. Lee and Lim (2003) disclosed that partner commitment favourably influenced companies' tendency to perform electronic data interchange incorporation and improved the proportion of electronic data interchange performance and exchange.

Taylor and Wright (2003) reported that the commitment of senior managers was a necessary condition for overall quality management success. Jayawarna et al. (2007) showed that commitment to formal training substantially enhanced performance among SMEs in the United Kingdom. Cabrera-Suárez and Martín-Santana (2012) found that successor's affective commitment emboldened successor's success in Spain. Ceylan (2013) discovered that the influence of a commitment-oriented HR scheme on marketing, innovation and process efforts were good in Turkey. Garrido-Moreno et al. (2014) uncovered that commitment emboldened customer relations management success of hotels in Europe. Loher et al. (2018) found that entrepreneurs with a greater ex ante financial commitment to their business had a much better funding success rate. In addition, the authors showed that monetary commitment is the only significant factor in influencing fundraising success. Hayek et al. (2018) disclosed that affective commitment fostered career success in a family enterprise in Ecuador. Imamoglu et al. (2019) unveiled that commitment favourably impacted on firm performance. From the foregoing, the second supposition of this conceptual reads:

S1a.

Partner commitment will be favourably linked to partnership success.

With respect to the impact of partner coordination and success, Mohr and Spekman (1994) showed that partner coordination fostered partnership success among partnered firms in the computer industry. Nidumolu (1995) used data from diverse sectors and found that both horizontal and vertical integration accelerated total performance. In their study of Just-in-Time relationships, Frazier et al. (1988) proposed that high degree of coordination are linked to meeting expectations on both sides. Duarte et al. (2012) showed that interpersonal coordination affected performance outcomes. Šebić et al. (2012) disclosed that tests of coordination were significant antecedents to attaining success in executing stylised movement arrangements among males. Wang et al. (2018) uncovered that process coordination activated coordination success in China. Liu (2020) found that coordination capacity emboldened organisational performance. In this context, the third supposition of this research reads:

S1b.

Partner coordination will be favourably linked to partnership success.

Considering the impact of partner interdependence on partnership success, Lee and Lim (2003) disclosed that interdependence favourably influenced companies' tendency to perform electronic data interchange incorporation and improved the proportion of electronic data interchange performance and exchange. Johnson et al. (1989) discovered that favourable goal interdependence supported an increase in group productivity and individual achievement. Additionally, the combination of positive resource and goal interdependence to helped increase group productivity and individual accomplishment. Wu and Wu (2015) revealed that buyer–supplier interdependence encouraged product innovation success in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Mewhirter and Berardo (2019) discovered that biophysical interdependence led to enhanced performance. Zhang et al. (2021) found that suppliers' inter-organisational task interdependence stimulated their new product development product performance. Gu et al. (2022) used data from team members and disclosed that team reward interdependence stimulated team performance in China. Under this perspective, the fourth supposition of this conceptual work reads:

S1c.

Partner interdependence will be favourably linked to partnership success.

Regarding the impact of partner trust on partnership success, Anderson and Weitz (1992) presented that trust in partnerships is relevant in mollifying a partner's fear of unscrupulous conducts. Mohr and Spekman (1994) showed that partner trust bolstered partnership success among partnered firms in the computer industry. Cullen et al. (2000) demonstrated that trust strengthened the effectiveness of global strategic alliances with the Japanese. Lee and Lim (2003) disclosed that partner trust favourably influenced companies' tendency to perform electronic data interchange incorporation and improved the proportion of electronic data interchange performance and exchange. Cheng et al. (2008) disclosed that trust accelerated firm performance in China. Duffner et al. (2009) reported that trust encouraged venture capital financing success in Germany. Chang et al. (2011) discovered that trust favourably impacted on virtual team's performance. Qi and Chau (2013) discovered that inter- and intra-organizational trust contributed to the success of IT outsourcing. Goudarzi and Zadeh (2014) reported that interpersonal and inter-organizational trust contributed to the success of IT outsourcing. Oláh et al. (2017) discovered that employee trust reinforced profitability of firms and the partner trust contributed to long-term, flexible and stable cooperation, as well as smooth operations. Lampaki and Papadakis (2018) also demonstrated that trust in elite teams facilitated successful implementation in Greek enterprises. To this extent, the fifth supposition of this research reads:

S1d.

Partner trust will be favourably linked to partnership success.

2.2 Contingency theory

The argument for the potential moderating role of brand competition in the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship is illuminated by the contingency theory (Luthans and Stewart, 1977). This theory assumes that the success of partnerships is contingent on one or more factors, such as the level of competition among rival companies, termed as brand competition. The argument for the potential moderating effect of brand competition in the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship is also backed by the findings of related studies. Such studies offer theoretical and empirical justification for the connection between brand competition and partnership characteristics (Bar-Isaac, 2005; Ferreira and Kittsteiner, 2015; Francois et al., 2009; Huck et al., 2012; Kuo, 2013), as well as the relationship between brand competition and partnership success (Björkman, 1995; Nickell, 1996; Simon, 1984), in an effort to fuel a potential moderating impact.

Regarding the connection between brand competition and partnership characteristics, for instance, Bar-Isaac (2005) disclosed that competition aided reputable commitments for quality. Francois et al. (2009) reported that increases in firm-level competition enhanced individual-level trust. Huck et al. (2012) showed that competition fostered trust, implying that competition eliminated the trust problem almost completely. Kuo (2013) found that intense competition among high-tech industrial clusters caused employees of firms to increase organisational commitment. Ferreira and Kittsteiner (2015) reported that competition increased the importance of firms to be efficient in their operations by way of improving on their commitment, coordination, interdependence and trust for each other.

Concerning the relationship between brand competition and partnership success, Simon (1984) discovered that good competition led to enhanced performance. Björkman (1995) disclosed that competition stimulated success. Nickell (1996) found that competition was connected with significantly higher rates of total factor productivity growth. However, other scholars revealed contradictory results that suggested that competition impaired firm-level outcomes. To exemplify, Poulton et al. (2004) unveil that, higher degrees of competition were not essentially connected with improved performance of a system. Khattak and Ali (2021) also showed that intense competition led to lower performance, profitability and increased risk. This result implies that trade-offs exist between the level of competition and the degree of success achieved between players within a sector. Hence, the need arises to further examine the effect of competition on a firm-level outcome like partnership success. In spite of contradictory findings surrounding the connection between competition and firm-level outcomes, we expect brand competition within the accounting industry to foster partnership success.

Acknowledging that research on the moderating impact of brand competition in the connection between partnership attributes and partnership success is hard to find, we find that earlier researches have used competition as a moderator but on different direct connection. To provide illustrations, Huo et al. (2014) disclosed that competition performed a conditional role on the connection between firm performance and supply chain integration. Shafique et al. (2015) reported that competitive rivalry moderated the connection between organisational performance and customer relationship management competencies. Takata (2016) found that competition moderated the favourable nexus between how firms perform and their core capabilities, such that the core marketing capabilities had a larger impact on how well firms do when competition is robust than when it is slight. Also, the favourable correlation between an entrepreneurial mindset and the success of SMEs was found to be context-dependent on competition, as reported by Kura et al. (2020). To this end, the second hypothesis of this research reads:

S2.

Brand competition will moderate the partnership attributes–partnership success connection, such that an intense brand competition will reinforce this connection, while a mild brand competition will impair it.

S2a.

Brand competition will moderate the partner commitment–partnership success connection, such that an intense brand competition will reinforce this connection, while a mild brand competition will impair it.

S2b.

Brand competition will moderate the partner coordination–partnership success connection, such that an intense brand competition will reinforce this connection, while a mild brand competition will impair it.

S2c.

Brand competition will moderate the partner interdependence–partnership success connection, such that an intense brand competition will reinforce this connection, while a mild brand competition will impair it.

S2d.

Brand competition will moderate the partner trust–partnership success connection, such that an intense brand competition will reinforce this connection, while a mild brand competition will impair it.

3. Conceptual framework

Figure 1 depicts the final conceptual model after all of the foregoing discussion. The suppositions are branded as S1, S1a, S1b, S1c, S1d, S2, S2a, S2b, S2c and S2d. The suppositions describing the favourable impact of partnership attributes on partnership success (S1), the favourable effect of partner commitment on partnership success (S1a), the favourable effect of partner coordination on partnership success (S1b), the favourable effect of partner interdependence on partnership success (S1c), the favourable effect of partner trust on partnership success (S1d) appear solid; however, the favourable interaction effect of partnership attributes and brand competition on partnership success (S2), the favourable interaction effect of partner commitment and brand competition on partnership success (S2a), the favourable interaction effect of partner coordination and brand competition on partnership success (S2b), the favourable interaction effect of partner interdependence and brand competition on partnership success (S2c), and the favourable interaction effect of partner trust and brand competition on partnership success (S2d) appear dotted.

In this context (S1) shows that ways by which partnership attributes advance partnership success in accounting firms. Likewise, (S1a) explains the ways by which partner commitment stimulates partnership success, (S1b) explains the ways by which partner coordination inspires partnership success, (S1c) elucidates the ways by which partner interdependence fosters partnership success, (S1d) describes the ways by which partner trust emboldens partnership success, (S2) elucidates the interaction effect of partnership attributes and brand competition on partnership success, (S2a) expounds the interaction effect of partner commitment and brand competition on partnership success, (S2b) illuminates the interaction effect of partner coordination and brand competition on partnership success, (S2c) explains the interaction effect of partner interdependence and brand competition on partnership success. The remaining supposition explicates how partner trust interacts with brand competition to embolden partnership success (S2d).

4. Discussion

For several reasons, this conceptual work is enlightening. To begin, it moves forward and assimilates literature on six (6) autonomous subjects: (1) partner commitment, (2) partner coordination, (3) partner interdependence, (4) partner trust, (5) partnership success and (6) brand competition; the 1st functioning as a commitment device, the 2nd functioning as a coordination device, the 3rd functioning as an interdependence device, the 4th functioning as a trust device, the 5th functioning as a success device and the 6th functioning as a competition device. Accordingly, this conceptual research surpasses one topic.

Secondly, this work is enlightening because it provides enlightenment on the direct favourable effect of partnership attributes (partner commitment, partner coordination, partner interdependence, partner trust) on partnership success in accounting firms, using the resource dependency theory (Pfeffer and Salancik, 2003) as theoretical underpinning. It provides additional literature and guidance on how partnership attributes influence partnership success. This additional knowledge is relevant in addressing the antecedents to forming partnerships with the truth that many of such strategic alliances get destroyed in the early years of operation.

Thirdly, this work is enlightening because it offers first-hand information on the context-contingent role played by brand competition in the connection between partnership attributes and partnership success in accounting firms, using the contingency theory as a theoretical base (Luthans and Stewart, 1977). In this context, (1) it attempts to resolve the paradox of inconsistency existing between competition and success of firms by further examining the effect of brand competition on partnership success, (2) demonstrates how internal factors (4 partnership attributes) and external factors (represented by brand competition) interact to foster accounting partnership success, (3) it provides a baseline information for upcoming researches to investigate other moderators under which the partnership attributes–partnership success linkage can be improved. Examples of these moderators are technological turbulence, market dynamism and government regulation.

A law that restricts a company's actions is called a government regulation (Li et al., 2017). Managers of accounting partnerships may be prompted to implement new policies and procedures in response to increasingly stringent government rules. Market dynamism refers to the frequent and unpredictable shifts in consumer and rival behaviours (Miller, 1987). High levels of entry and exit are indicative of market volatility, according to Rumelt and Lamb (1997). It has been found that market dynamism greatly impacts the demands and technology of enterprises, allowing them to quickly adjust to transform to the industry (Jap, 1999), thereby instilling and boosting partnership success. This is especially true for businesses that view the forces within their market as unstable, which may move them to be proactive (Rumelt and Lamb, 1997). The rate of technological change is referred to as technological turbulence (Kohli and Jaworski, 1990). Successful partnerships can be boosted by technologically advanced companies that constantly innovate their services and products and their methods of managing those services and products.

Fourthly, this study sheds light on the effect of partnership qualities (partner commitment, partner coordination, partner interdependence, partner trust) on partnership success moderated by brand competition by assimilating the resource dependency and general contingency theories. Finally, the conceptual work elongates the Sustainable Development Aim 17 of the United Nations, which pursues to “… revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development …”

5. Conclusion

More complexity, less freedom, distrust and a lack of information seem to pose threats to the success of partner relationships in accounting firms, as approximately 70% of business partnerships fail globally, undermining SDG 17. The low competitive intensity in this industry seems not to help the current situation. Yet, the existing strategic alliance literature have been somewhat sluggish in adequately addressing how partnership attributes affect partnership success and how brand competition impacts this relationship. In response, this research addressed the impact of partnership attributes on partnership success in accounting firms. It further explored the brand competition circumstances under which the partnership attributes– partnership success connection may be intensified.

This research finds that partnership attributes will be favourably linked to partnership success, and this favourable nexus will be positively moderated by brand competition. Such that the partnership attributes– partnership success connection will be more pronounced if brand competition within the accounting industry is high than low. The above findings imply that partner commitment, partner coordination, partner interdependence and partner trust are essential success factors for accounting partnership firms. In addition, this research highlights the relevance of industry competition in forcing accounting partnerships firms to be up and doing. This eventually makes them successful.

6. Implications to research

Forthcoming researches may test this study and the suppositions that it presents, empirically, in varied accounting partnership settings world-wide. In particular, they may examine how partnership attributes embolden partnership success, since literature on this topic is inadequate and the few existing ones are also far outdated. Of greater interest, the external environmental conditions under which the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship can be enhanced is yet to be fully investigated in the literature. Hence, this conceptual work provides lessons for researchers by stimulating their interest to explore the moderating role of brand competition in the connection between partnership attributes and partnership success, since existing empirical works have offered theoretical and empirical justification for the connection between brand competition and partnership characteristics (Bar-Isaac, 2005; Ferreira and Kittsteiner, 2015; Francois et al., 2009; Huck et al., 2012; Kuo, 2013), as well as the relationship between brand competition and partnership success (Björkman, 1995; Nickell, 1996; Simon, 1984), in an effort to fuel a potential moderating impact. Forthcoming researchers may extend this conceptual model to further explore the other external environmental pressures discussed above (technological turbulence, market dynamism, government regulation) under which the partnership attributes–partnership success connection can be reinforced. A specification of the external environmental pressures that moderate the positive impacts of partnership attributes can offer a valuable framework for forthcoming research.

7. Implications to practice

First, this conceptual work offers clarity into how these alliances can be harnessed to achieve and maintain success. Under this perspective, it is a wakeup call for partnership firms and their managers to improve their partnership attributes, particularly in the areas of partner commitment, coordination, interdependence and trust. Second, it provides a framework for enhancing partnership success, as a way of providing some remedies to partnership firms and their managing partners who are on the verge of collapse. Third, knowledge of the antecedents of partnership success may help shareholders, chief executive officers and consultants, particularly those who are interested in the success of accounting partnership firms, in managing partnerships progressively, as well as choosing the kind of parties to associate with. Fourth, this study underscores the importance for governments and industry players to encourage keen competition in an industry, as it could propel accounting partnership firms to obtain business success by compelling them to improve on their internal attributes. Understanding the conditions under which the partnership attributes–partnership success relationship can be reinforced is crucial in providing antidotes to shareholders, chief executive officers and consultants alike on why many strategic accounting partnerships do not succeed.

Figures

Figure 1

Conceptual model