When we want our members’ opinion, we ask for it

I have a small sign on my desk that says “It’s the Membership, Stupid.” This sign occasionally raises an eyebrow, but most people understand the point: Organizations such as the

NYSSCPA exist completely for their members’ interests. People who serve membership organizations and think they know what’s best for the organization because the members are misguided or wrong are themselves misguided or wrong—or both.

On page 16 you will find the results of an NYSSCPA survey conducted on the AICPA’s proposed global credential (formerly known as Cognitor, formerly known as XYZ) and four individuals’ observations and comments on the survey’s findings. Some people have questioned the Society’s decision to survey all of its 30,000 members as opposed to a random or statistical sample. But heretofore the AICPA’s plans for the global credential appear to have been driven by surveys and research that no one outside the AICPA has seen, and the NYSSCPA believes that to use member dues to change the profession in fundamental ways that may be unpopular or misconstrued cries for maximum member input.

We considered a random-sample survey but feel strongly that a survey of the entire membership was the right decision because we want to know what everyone thinks when we’re talking about a change that involves the core issues of the profession and the environment in which it operates. For example, the Big Five firms all have substantial consulting practices, and their major competitors include consulting giants like Booz Allen & Hamilton and McKinsey. A client may perceive a consulting firm like McKinsey very differently than a Big Five accounting/consulting firm. But if professionals at both firms can hold a global credential that the AICPA awards, that creates a huge difference and distinction.

The response to the survey was astonishing: More than 6,300 replies (more than 20% of our membership, a phenomenally high response rate) were received via mail, fax, and our website. Also reassuring was that the demographic mix of those responding closely matches our membership population overall: Every demographic segment is reflected proportionately. Independently, the Illinois CPA Society sent all of its members an abbreviated version of our survey, and their results were virtually identical.

Delving into the particulars, I think the response to Question No. 10, “Is the CPA designation as prestigious as it once was?,” is key. We keep hearing that the profession commands less respect than 10 years ago, but two-thirds of those responding seemed to think the CPA credential has a lot of value. The answers to every other question should be viewed through that lens.

Question No. 11, “Do you believe the public’s perception of the CPA matches what CPAs do?,” is the second most important in terms of showing how CPAs perceive their perceived value in the business community: The response is the reverse of Question No. 10, with two-thirds indicating no. Interestingly, an analysis of the response to Question No. 18 indicates that the more members believe they understand the concept of the global credential and how it will be implemented, the less they like it.

The CPA Journal is broadly recognized as an outstanding, technical-refereed publication aimed at public practitioners, management, educators, and other accounting professionals. It is edited by CPAs for CPAs. Our goal is to provide CPAs and other accounting professionals with the information and news to enable them to be successful accountants, managers, and executives in today's practice environments.